Talk:Monterrey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of the WikiProject on Cities which aims to improve and standardize articles on cities, towns, and other municipalities of the world. Make suggestions for improving multiple articles on these subjects at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities.

Contents

[edit] Metropolitan Area

Santiago, Cadereyta, Ciénega de Flores, Pesquería, García, Juarez and Zuazua aren't considered part of the metropolitan area of Monterrey by the standards of most Regios. They should be deleted.

They are considered by the government.

[edit] Average income=

I think whoever wrote the avergae income for San Pedro Garza Garcia will have to take their comment back. San Pedro is in fact the richest city in Latin America and is often compared with upscale neighborhoods such as Beverly Hills and Buckhead in Atlanta, Georgia. Me being a native and resident of this city, know that people in San Pedro don't have average incomes of 20,000 . I'd say if you want to live here, you got to have a wage of at least 80,000. Home average prices are about 450,000 usd. So, yeah, if you are that middle-high American citizen, you might not be able to afford living in San Pedro. Take reference that Monterrey is the most expensive overall city of Latin America, even excluding San Pedro itself. Monterrey is the closest to America as you will ever get.

I disagree about Monterrey being the most expensive overall. I'd say a person can live far better with less money in Monterrey than in Mexico City. I've lived in both places, and living in San Nicolas was a lot more affordable than living in Tlalpan...and yes, San Nicolas and Tlalpan are comparable socioeconomically. It's sort of like comparing Los Angeles to New York. Though both are expensive, one can live much better with less money in Los Angeles.


Well I guess you both guys are correct, while there are *some* districts in san pedro where you can afford a house for USD$10,000 like san pedro's center populary known as "El Casco" or "Tampiquito" etc., some of the richies families in the country live in san pedro wich property values in several millions of dollars. San Pedro is one of those municipalities which can host most economical diverse households, have you ever been to "La Garza Ayala"? We have a vary varied group of cultures, although the fact the San Pedro has one of the greatest GDP of LATAM... and please bear that it is a 10% of San Pedro's Population that keep those levels... if we take on account only the rich districts of San Pedro thre is no doubt that No Amercian city could match it... its a general national problem, the wealth is poorly distributed.

I DISAGREE with most of the above statements. I am resident of San Pedro and it is not "the richest city in Latin America". There is so much contrast: unemployed professionals living next door to wealthy people... there is not a sense of community. Real Estate is a buyers market, a lot of homes for sale so prices are much, much lower: you can buy a three bethroom home for less than $100,000. Average income is low, high unemployment and the town is very expensive. The person who wrote the above statements has no sense of reality and value.

I was the one who wrote about San Nicolas above, and I was the one who mentioned the barricaded fortresses below. There's no doubt that, regardless of whichever colonia in Latin America is the wealthiest per-capita, the richest of Monterrey's rich live near Chipinque in San Pedro. Pardon me for saying so, but I do have a sense of reality and value, and I want to thank you for pushing this discussion along. Can you refer us to some published statistics to back your claims? I'd love to bring San Pedro down a notch. Any area where such proud, ostentatious wealth dwells so close to abject poverty deserves nothing less.

According to statistics, San Pedro has the largest Per Capita income of Latin America. That doesn't mean that there is no poor in San Pedro, it only means, that on average, it has the highest income. Hari Seldon 14:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Average income=

I'd like to see some solid data, backed with good references, on the GDP topic. Does anybody have reliable statistics, from trustworthy sources about the GDP or average income of the Monterrey metro area and of other cities as well? I wouldn't like to see this grow into a sterile localist discussion, but it'd be great if we could use good data and not write based on hearsay. There is this link from the BBC [1]; it says that San Pedro, of the Monterrey metro area has an average income of 20,000 US. SS.

There is a good article on the America Economia magazine that has relevant information on the city's GDP and such, but no income. I, as a life long resident can also assure you that 20,000 dollars is definitely not possible. I agree with previous posts that this figure should be much higher. I earned more than 20,000 straight out of college and managed to go through just cause I lived with my parents. It's extremely expensive. The reason official figures are hard to come by is simple: "fear".

Yes indeed, the robber barons that reside in the "Sultan of the North" have done a great job amassing their fortunes...and most of them live in San Pedro. The thing that struck me as an American is the "fear" on display in San Pedro, with all of its high barricaded walls and security forces.


I just want to add some hard data to this discussion, here are my two cents: According to Conapo (Consejo Nacional de Población, www.conapo.gob.mx) in its publication La desigualdad en la distribución del ingreso monetario en México in the year 2000 the average monthly household income was 23,255.39 pesos. given that the average exchange rate in 2000 was 9.47 MXN per USD the average annual income for San Pedro Garza García was 29,468.29 USD (23255.39*12/9.47). As far as I know this is the highest in Mexico (although it is normalized by household size). In the same publication you can corroborate that San Pedro Garza García is a highly unequal municipality, its Gini index of 0.596 puts it a little bit above the average income inequality (at a municipal level) of Mexico. In other words not everyone living in San Pedro is part of this rich society. Hope this helps to clarify this discussion. One more thing it would be a good idea to sign your contribution. --LS1010 23:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mislabeled photo

The photo labeled "Cerro de la silla" is incorrectly spelled. I believe it is correctly spelled "Sierra", but I don't know how to edit the photo tag.Rixnixon 05:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

In fact all of the mountains are not named correctly. Could someone else confirm that "Sierra" is the correct spelling?Rixnixon 05:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The photo Image:Cerro de la Silla.jpg is not incorrectly spelled. Cerro means hill while Sierra means mountain range. -Abögarp 15:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enough with the beer

Seems like somebody from FEMSA (the Monterrey brewing company) edited the article and placed all thier brands in the first three lines about the city. Monterrey is an industrial city but there is definitely more to say about it than industry and beer brands.

Shouldn't this be Monterrey, Nuevo Leon? -- Zoe

Why not just Monterrey? The one in Cali is spelt with one "r". Are there other Monterreys in Mexico or elsewhere? --mav

YES they are about three or four more mexican cities named monterrey and it would be pronounced different as well


Mexico is as much a federal country as Canada or the United States. Since US and Canadian cities are listed with their states, why shouldn't Mexico's be? -- Zoe
We have decided that Canada and the US are special cases since Canadians and American very commonly refer to their cities in the [city, state/province] format. All other cities, as was decided, should go un-disambiguated unless there is an actual naming conflict. --mav
I just attempted to move it to Monterrey, but of course I couldn't, that page having a history. Any sysop monitoring this page fancy being bold tonight? –Hjr 01:19, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)


This article should be in Monterrey. There's no other city in the world with that name. Plus, the state where Monterrey is located is Nuevo León, not Mexico (there's a state called Mexico in the country: Mexico (state)). Ruiz 23:28, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

More reasons:

[edit] Hurricane Gilberto

Hurricane Gilberto occured in 1988 - not 1987 as mentioned in this page

[edit] Population discrepancy

Our article on Puebla says that it has 1,650,000 inhabitants. Our article on Monterrey says it has 1,100,000 or so. But Monterrey is bigger than Puebla. So how does this work out? john k 14:19, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The problem here is that there is a 15 year old sign at the entrance of the city of Monterrey (on Avenida Lazaro Cardenas, when crossing from San Pedro to Monterrey, in front of the "Galerias Valle Oriente" mall, that says that Monterrey has 1.1 million inhabitants. The sign is, as I said, 15 years old or so, but nobody questions the sign. I have not checked INEGI yet, but my bet will be that their statistics are equally flawed. Newspaper reports are that the Metropolitan area has around 4 million inhabitants, but this must be very difficult to check. - hseldon 08 March 2005
It is very sad to see how a Mexican -I suppose you are (hseldon)- does not believe in Mexican institutions. INEGI is known worldwide for being one of the world's best institutes of its kind. In their 2000 Population Census, Monterrey (the municipality, not the metropolitan area) has 1,110,997 inhabitants. This is not a 15 years old stat, it has only 5 years, and perhaps nowadays the number is very similar as the municipality of Monterrey is not the one growing faster in the Metropolitan Area, which by the way, has 3,225,813 inhabitants according to the same census. Not even the whole state has 4 million people!
"Newspaper reports are that the Metropolitan area has around 4 million inhabitants, but this must be very difficult to check" Exactly. You are referring to the Metropolitan area, not Monterrey specifically. There might be some confusion going on your side, because I also agree with the fact that the sign has been there for no more than 5 years (the last census), and actually could not have been there for 15 years, considering the massive urban changes that specific area has gone through in the last few years. And I guess this answers your question, John, "So how does this workout?". Monterrey is bigger than Puebla because it has a Metropolitan area, while Puebla doesn't, hence reaching the 3,225,813 inhabitants. 08 September 2005.
Puebla most certainly does have a metropolitan area, or conurbation, if you prefer. At the very least, it includes San Andres Cholula and San Pedro Cholula (both are within 20km of downtown Puebla), which would add 150,000 inhabitants to Puebla's total. Wouldn't always be wiser to use conurbation statistics when they exist? My friends in Cholula usually tell people from other regions of Mexico that they live in Puebla, not Cholula. Cholula would have a very small population indeed if it weren't for the universities that have spilled over from the municipality of Puebla proper. Population statistics should reflect the attitudes and the daily practicalities of the people they represent.
Re: My mistake for not trusting INEGI, and for saying the stat is 10 years older than it was. I did not checked INEGI, but I have now... Hari Seldon 05:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quality of Living report

The article mentions that "Monterrey was also voted city number 87 (scoring a 92), in terms of Quality of Living, by Mercer Human Resource Consulting on 2005, on their worldwide report." I just thought that someone should mention that this survey isn't comprehensive...their "worldwide report" doesn't even include Dallas/Fort Worth, for example.

[edit] False Friends

To all the native spanish speakers: Be careful of the "false friends" when writing in english. Direct flight (regarding the "transportation" section) means a flight with at least one stop before its final destinations. The correct term is "non-stop". I have corrected this, but haven't cared to look for more of this kind of mistakes.--Aldoman 22:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Urban metropolitane area population

Please check it the population of the entire metropolitane area of Monterrey. The total number overpass the 3,800,000 inhabitants, a number bigger than the indicated on your article. See the article in spanish. 8:55:00, 24 Octobre 2006

[edit] The importance

The importance of the city following the world-wide list, corresponds as the third place. If you want to show the rank you will have to add a citation wich is needed to confirm. If you dont have a citation skip that part of the article. (Raveonpraghga)

According to this ranking, Monterrey is the best ranked Mexican City for doing business, the best Mexican and Latin American city in terms of security, the best Mexican city in terms of quality of life, 8th in terms of cost of living (meaning that living in Monterrey is cheaper than in 7 other cities), the #1 Mexican city, and Latin American city in GDP adjusted for the cost of living, the top GDP per Capita of Mexico and Latin America. The source of that ranking is: America Economica. It seems to me that Monterrey is #1 in rankings, followed by Mexico City, Guadalajara, and all other major Mexican cities. Hari Seldon 09:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


Dear Hari the enciclopedia is based in real contributions not in your personal concepts, Monterrey is not the second city if you see the world wide list:Second city if you keep on writing the text that enunciate as second city i will have to make you put a citation, wich could make look the article as poor of veracity, so please skip the importance or add the real rank.
Greetings, if you have questions, contributions want to exchange information or make a vandalism report please contact me.

(Raveonpraghga)

.Please stop ignoring my arguments. "Criteria for second city status include population size, economic or commercial importance, political importance, or some cultural sense."
  • Population Size, Monterrey's metro area is third.
  • economic or commercial importance, per my previous argument, it is the most important city in Latin America
  • political importance: this a subjective measure, but until quite recently, a third of cabinet members where from Monterrey, plus, it has been argued that important business interests have a deep involvement in politics... Those business interests are from Monterrey.
  • cultural importance: this is also a subjective measure. If we measure by universities, it is not unknown that the most important university outside from Mexico City is from Monterrey (ITESM)... If measured by broadcasting, Monterrey produces most of the TV and Radio content made outside of Mexico City... Same goes for press, as two of the five most influential newspapers in the country are from Monterrey (Reforma and Milenio).
In essence, "second city" is a subjective measure, but, at least from all the rankings previously exposed, it is a reasonable conclusion that Monterrey is Mexico's Second City.
I can find no records of cities ranked by importance for Mexico, but INEGI has extensive statistics that support the claims that economically, politically and culturally, Monterrey is the second city in importance in Mexico... That is 3 out of 4 criteria. I think it is reasonable to state this in wikipedia. Hari Seldon 02:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
By the same token, I ask you that you that you provide a citation that Monterrey is not second, but third city in importance... If you cannot do this, then aknowledge the above arguments and stop vandalizing this page with your opinion. Hari Seldon 02:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The mistake in the article "Second City" has been corrected. Please source your claim that Guadalajara is Mexico's second city. Here, I have America Latina and INEGI as a source. Please do the same for your argument before continuing editing to impose your opinion. Hari Seldon 02:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I removed the controversial statement, yet I apologize for not having read this debate before. Re-insert it again if necessary. Yet I have to say, like I have said on other articles and even other wikipedias, the adjective "important" is extremely subjective and should be avoided unless the specifics can be given. That is, the overall importance of one city is debatable, (X is the second most important city), whereas the specifics are not (X is the second most important industrial center in the country); and most of all, specifics can be verifiable. I could cite a list of categories in which Monterrey would rank second (or first) and I could also cite a list of categories in which Monterrey would rank third (or tenth). Given that both Guadalajara and Monterrey are important agglomerations in Mexico, the issue is much more controversial and debatable, unless we provide specifics. Hari, would you please reference (that is provide a direct link to) your sources for citing the economic, commercial, political and cultural importance of Monterrey? At least industrial "importance" is verifiable (say through industrial % of GDP). Political and cultural are a lot more subjective, yet any source would help. By the way the Chilean magazine, America Economia, ranks cities as "better cities to start a business". I doubt that means "importance", unless you are willing to make the preposterous claim that Monterrey is even more "important" than Mexico City (based on that ranking) --Alonso 01:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the sentence. Perhaps it is difficult for both of you to understand how the Mexicans think. We are not people that fight for everything, and if you ask another Mexican they will say Monterrey is the second most important city and second most important Metropolitan area. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 01:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Alex, its you again. Well I have to say that am Mexican by birth, and I do not think Monterrey is the second most important city nor metropolitan area. (And, boy, have I not seen Mexicans fighting over these and related concepts in the Spanish and English wikipedias!) Yet it is not my opinion what really matters, but what is academically sound. I find the adjective "important" extremely subjective and prone to debate. Using your "same rod of measurement" I doubt you can cite a source that cites that Monterrey is the second most important city [overall, that is in "all" aspects] and even if it sounds "reasonable" to you (based on your own conclusions regarding the concepts of second city), that doesn't mean it is necessarily so. Unless of course, we can be academically rigorous enough and provide all necessary verifiable and quantifiable sources. In any case, I would rather use specifics (i.e. Monterrey is the second most important industrial hub in the country, the first for entrepreneurship, the safest, and is home of the highest-ranked private university in Latin America), and avoid subjective generalizations subject to debate. --Alonso 01:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree generally that calling a city "Second City" is a subjective condition. I want to propose the following compromise:
  • No calling "second most important City" or anything similar in the article pages of Guadalajara and Monterrey... Simply state core-competencies (such as, Monterrey is the top business city in Latin America, according to America Economica -properly sourced-). The term "second most important", "second city", or anything similar should dissappear from both articles.
  • In the article "Second City", I would go with Dina's proposal of calling both Guadalajara and Monterrey "Second City", leaving the sources I added. Perhaps it may even be a good idea to add a "Mexico" sub-section and explain this conflict, including several rankings for the cities you gave me, J Alonso (Puebla, Guadalajara, Monterrey, Cancun, etc...) and say that, generally and subjectively, the title is competed between Monterrey and Guadalajara.
I believe this compromise does justice to all and may help avoid an edit war (and waste of time over such a minor issue). What do you think?
Hari Seldon 03:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree: neither city should have the subjective title, and all areas (or competencies as you called them) in which Monterrey stands out should be mentioned, properly sourced. After all, in those specific areas Monterrey is the second (or first) most important city. It is the overall statement that is dubious and debatable. I guess we could also create, as you suggest, an article on "rankings" of Mexican cities in different aspects, though I am not quite sure how encyclopedic it would be. --Alonso 03:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

See how Australia, the US and Canada are handled in Second City, and lets add a subarticle there, with Mexico. Hari Seldon 03:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/o/n/Talk%7EMonterrey_b5dd.html"