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.
Architecture - Spain has a longer European history but Mexico City has tons of colonial buildings as well as the pre-colonial Aztec civilisation.
Madrid
Quote:
Entertainment/Nightlife - Both have that Latin flair. Mexico City is a monster yet Madrid is renowned for it's nightlife. Which do you think comes out top?
Mexico City
Quote:
Dining - I've heard good things about both. It would depend if you prefer Mexican or Spanish food, but both have diverse international dining scenes.
Mexico City
Quote:
Scenery - I'd probably say Mexico City is more stunning.
Madrid
Quote:
People/Friendliness - No idea about this one
Mexico City
Madrileños are like most other Europeans in terms of social coldness. In fact, in all of Spain except Andalucia and Canary Islands the typical people are much colder than is typical in Latin America. I guess it makes sense, because most Spaniards that moved to Latin America in colonial times were from Andalucia and Canary Islands. Needless to say, I feel most comfortable in southern Spain (especially in Cádiz) and careless for anything north of there in Spain and that includes Madrid.
Sorry.
Meant to say they are non comparable cities
Why do you keep saying Madrid is ancient?
Madrid is not ancient!
Of these 2 cities, Madrid is NOT the one with a world class anthropology museum dedicated to a whole series of highly developed ANCIENT civilizations that inhabited the Valley of Mexico and beyond.
In Madrid, nor in it's environs, does a visitor see any massive ancient sites nearly 2000 years old...
Relics from the Moors and any subsequent medieval or renaissance structures are not any older than the Pre-Hispanic city ruins or temple sites that continue to be excavated in and around Mexico City.
In Spain, one would need to visit Cordoba, or Merida, or Tarragona to see the real ancient stuff in Spain.
You also need to realize that... when you visit the historic center of Mexico City - you are actually looking at some of the very stones that formed the Aztec pyramids and palaces.
After the conquest of Tenochtitlan, the Spanish reused alot of the Tezontle (red volcanic stone) from Aztec structures to build the colonial palaces, churches, and administrative buildings.
Of these 2 cities, Madrid is NOT the one with a world class anthropology museum dedicated to a whole series of highly developed ANCIENT civilizations that inhabited the Valley of Mexico and beyond.
In Madrid, nor in it's environs, does a visitor see any massive ancient sites nearly 2000 years old...
Relics from the Moors and any subsequent medieval or renaissance structures are not any older than the Pre-Hispanic city ruins or temple sites that continue to be excavated in and around Mexico City.
In Spain, one would need to visit Cordoba, or Merida, or Tarragona to see the real ancient stuff in Spain.
You also need to realize that... when you visit the historic center of Mexico City - you are actually looking at some of the very stones that formed the Aztec pyramids and palaces.
After the conquest of Tenochtitlan, the Spanish reused alot of the Tezontle (red volcanic stone) from Aztec structures to build the colonial palaces, churches, and administrative buildings.
What on earth are you on about.
The surroundings of Madrid is full of ancient sites.
If you want to get to the Nitty gritty you'd have to go to Africa to witness the world's oldest civilization.
Not much recorded historically or anything to witness.
There is no way Mexico looks anywhere near as old as Europe.
Because it's not.
Architecture - Mexico city. While its true Madrid has nice European architecture, Mexico city tops it because it also has that European architecture built by the French and the Spaniards, but it also has ancient pyramids, modern American style buildings, basically you could easily say Mexico city is three or four cities in one.
Entertainment/Nightlife - Madrid is cool in a European way, Mexico is fun in a Mexican way. Generally Mexicans party better than Spaniards.
Dining - Mexico has excellent local cuisine, from ancient Aztec cuisine *Yeah you can still eat that*, to traditional Mexican cuisine, to cuisines from all over the planet.
Scenery - Mexico city has volcanoes, rainfoests, deserts, beaches all within a few hours. MAdrid is more in a semi arid southern California like setting.
People/Friendliness - Mexicans, while Spaniards are friendly, you still get that European aloof atttude.
Overall I was more impressed with Mexico city. It wowed and being there destroyed stereotypes I had...
Madrid is a nice European city along the lines of Barcelona, Prague, Munich, while Mexico city is a world megalopolis along the lines of Tokyo, NYC, London, Hong Kong, Rio de Janeiro.
This one really took the cake.
Mexicans party better than Spaniards?,Lofl.
The Spanish are world renowned for partying.
Mexicans are not.
Even Mexicans will tell you they go home at 2.30 in the morning when they go out while Spaniards go home after 8 am or later as I've witnessed myself.
In fact the nightlife in Latin America as a whole was a real let down.
The only country I noticed which was similar to Spain was Argentina.
Although that too has become a very dangerous country.
And Mexico city is in no way in the same category as those other megalopolis you mention.
It's a developing city in a developing country.
I really get the feeling that many on this forum just make wild assumptions and have not travelled at all.
This one really took the cake.
Mexicans party better than Spaniards?,Lofl.
The Spanish are world renowned for partying.
Mexicans are not.
Even Mexicans will tell you they go home at 2.30 in the morning when they go out while Spaniards go home after 8 am or later as I've witnessed myself.
In fact the nightlife in Latin America as a whole was a real let down.
The only country I noticed which was similar to Spain was Argentina.
Although that too has become a very dangerous country.
And Mexico city is in no way in the same category as those other megalopolis you mention.
It's a developing city in a developing country.
I really get the feeling that many on this forum just make wild assumptions and have not travelled at all.
lol come to colombia, we teach spaniards how to party
you seem emotional,almost like you want mexicans to be seen in a bad light or something.
I didnt find Madrid that interesting to be honest.
What on earth are you on about.
The surroundings of Madrid is full of ancient sites.
If you want to get to the Nitty gritty you'd have to go to Africa to witness the world's oldest civilization.
Not much recorded historically or anything to witness.
There is no way Mexico looks anywhere near as old as Europe.
Because it's not.
This is laughable now - You keep saying "looks ancient."
So you think that because Madrid has buildings that are in the Neo-Classical...or let's say the Art Nouveau, or even Beaux Art style of architecture - this qualifies the buildings as being "ancient."
NONE of the buildings in the center of Madrid are ancient! NONE!
NONE! Except for the temple of Debod - and we all know that was gifted to Spain by Egypt in the 1960s. hahaha
Now, why don't you actually read about the history of Madrid's city center and it's architectural patrimony...rather than relying on superficial observation. All of the afore mentioned styles are present in the center of Madrid and grace many of the cities primary and secondary arterial routes. Sure, they all make reference to antiquity in their ornamentation (domes, cupolas, caryatids, cherubs, moldings, classical orders, symmetry, etc.)...
..but that will never make the Edificio Metropolis, or the Edificio Telefonica, or the Circulo de Bellas Artes, or the Banco de Espana, or the Palacio de Linares, or the Palacio de Correos, or the Puerta de Alcala, or even the Puerta del Sol ANCIENT! These are some of the city's premier architectural sites and they are all less than 500 years old.
Your position is so subjective - it's... indefensible. :S
What on earth are you on about.
The surroundings of Madrid is full of ancient sites.
If you want to get to the Nitty gritty you'd have to go to Africa to witness the world's oldest civilization.
Not much recorded historically or anything to witness.
There is no way Mexico looks anywhere near as old as Europe.
Because it's not.
I just got back from a two week trip to Mexico City and I still stand by comments from 2018. LOLOL
1. Just consider the fact that central Mexico is one of only six cradles of civilization in the world (the others are Peru, Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, and China). What this means is that the indigenous Mexicans figured out on their own how to domesticate crops, particularly maize (their staple grain). They were able to grow enough crops to achieve food security and transition from nomadic hunter-gathers to a sedentary urbanized society. This is a monumental achievement in human history considering only 5 other cultures in the world accomplished this.
2. The valley of Mexico, where modern Mexico City is located, has been the site of urbanized settlements going as far back as 800 B.C.E. Tenochtitlan, the Mexica capital that precedes modern Mexico City is only the very last in a long line of urban societies in the region. What is even crazier is that the ruins of many of these ancient cities have survived to the present and are scattered throughout the modern megalopolis.
The oldest is Cuicuilco, believed to be oldest city in the Valley of Mexico (founded in 800 B.C.E). You can still visit the archaeological site of Cuicuilco today (it is located in the southern neighborhood of Tlalpan in Mexico City). The ancient city was destroyed during the eruption of the Xitle volcano in 250 A.D. and the survivors migrated to the rival city of Teotihuacan in the northern edge of the basin. See images of the pyramid of Cuicuilco below - the base of the main pyramid is surrounded by basaltic lava rock from the eruption.
The destruction of Cuicuilco helped consolidate Teotihucan's control over the trade routes in central Mexico and it grew to become one of the largest cities in the ancient world. The archaeological site of Teotihucan is located about an hour northeast of the central Mexico City. See images of Teotihucan below.
After the collapse of Teotihucan, the Toltec and Mixtec cities states rose and fell. You can still see the ruins of the Toltec city in modern day Tula, north of Mexico City. Unfortunately I did not have time to make a visit.
The final large urban society in the Valley of Mexico before European contact is Mexico-Tenochtitlan (capital of the Aztecs). The ruins of the sacred precinct in the heart of the ancient city slowly continue to be excavated to this day. The main temple was not discovered until the early 20th century and the site was only fully excavated in the 1970s, quite recent. For the longest time, people incorrectly assumed the ruins were located under the metropolitan cathedral. See images of the Templo Mayor and other Mexica ruins in the heart of Mexico City below.
^ Aztec temple of the wind god, Ehecatl. It was excavated during the construction of the Mexico City subway system and the station was built around it.
^ The ruins of the sacred precinct of Mexico-Tlaltelolco (another ancient "civic center" located in the northern neighborhoods of Tenochtitlan). This part of the modern city is still called Tlaltelolco.
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.
