Talk:Monterrey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is supported by WikiProject Cities, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Cities on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

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.
This official document from INEGI, Delimitación de las zonas metropolitanas de México, on page 68 says that the municipios of Santiago and Salinas Victoria are part of the metropolitan area, in addition to the nine municipios shown on the article's map. Backspace 09:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes, and this has been so for quite some time. However, again, it is a question of what takes more importance, Official documentation or traditional use?
Since I am the sort of person that doesn't believe very much in the Mexican government, I don't give much value to official documentation made by said government. It is usually out-dated and/or incomplete information. On the other hand, I am also a believer the culture is always built from the ground up, giving more importance to traditions.
Having said that, it is clear that, in the southern part of the city, it is easier to see people that understand that Santiago is part of the metro area, whereas in the northern part of the city, where Santiago is 45 minutes away, this may not be so easily the case. On the other hand, the reverse is true for Salinas Victoria.
In this particular instance, I would move for the inclusion of both Santiago and Salinas Victoria in the map, and other references of the Monterrey Metro Area. Hari Seldon 12:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, the INEGI document lists the following municipalities as part of the metro area: Apodaca, García, San Pedro Garza García, General Escobedo, Guadalupe, Juárez, Monterrey, Salinas Victoria, San Nicolás de los Garza, Santa Catarina, and Santiago. The document also states that, for all municipalities, the criteria for inclusion was that they both spring around a "central municipality" (Monterrey), and they all are physically connurbated. (Indeed, Salinas Victoria is physically connurbated to San Nicolás and Apodaca, who in turn are physically connurbated to Monterrey, while Santiago is physically connurbated to Monterrey directly).
Again, since I did not create the map, nor do I know how to edit it, I kindly ask the editor who knows to please add this information to the map. As for the article text, I am adding the information right now.
Hari Seldon 13:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, some of the links in the map are incorrect and do not redirect to the appropriate article (i.e., Juarez redirects to a list of all things called Juarez, and García links to an article about the name/surname). This should also be corrected. Hari Seldon 13:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


Whoa! I just finished editing all the articles of the municipalities part of the metropolitan area. I also modified the clickable map to include both Santiago and Salinas Victoria. Please check the articles of each of them. I created location maps, added the city infobox and added basic information. Next thing to do is uploading the coat of arms of each municipality, but I first need to find a document that explicitly say coats of arms are not elegible for copyright.AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 22:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[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] 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)
I am Mexican and I speak spanish. Cerro de la Silla is totally 100% well spelled. Cerro means mountain, while Sierra means mountain range. Hill is translated as Colina. AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 09:34, 21 March 2007 (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)
I don't want to restart an argument, but it seems that nothing was actually done about this. I am going to change the ref slightly, perhaps it will represent a compromise statement.--Dmz5 18:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Average income 2

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.

"Robber barons"? I find it objectionable (at best) the use of this term without proper sourced material, specially from someone demanding sources. Which "robber barons" are you particularly objecting to? Those that owned companies that were nationalized by the government, those that pay the taxes that support the Federal budget, those that, through their savings, maintain the financial system of Mexico and keep interest rates low, or those that consume national products aiding in the creation of Mexican jobs? Finally, the "fear" on display in San Pedro, and throughout the metro area, is not unjustified. Several public servants, including high ranking officials have been murdered in the streets of the city. The fear is justified, and the security crisis demands a solution (like, for example, having the US consume less drugs, or having politicians who take less bribes from drug dealers). Hari Seldon 04:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

It's been a long time since this debate started, but I believe it is necessary to clarify a couple of points. In economics, income per capita (or average income per capita) refers precisely to Gross Domestic Product per capita. In macroeconomics GDP (total production of a country or region) is equivalent to the total income of its residents. Elementary macroeconomics teaches that everything that a country produces is sold and therefore it represents the income of its producers (with minor differences as adjusted for savings). GNI is another way of measuring income (or production), but it is adjusted so that only the income produced by nationals is accounted for, and not the income produced by foreigners in national soil, and adds income perceived by "nationals" abroad.
In any case, when the World Bank, FMI, or any other economic institution or academic paper uses the word "income per capita" it is referring to GDP per capita and not to a statistic about average household salary. Let me explain. In a household, arguably, only both parents (or only one) work(s), but not the children, yet the children are taken into account in population figures when dividing total production (income) by number of residents. So, for example, if average salary in Garza García is 80,000 USD, but [on average] only one parent works, and [on average] every family has 2 children, then this is the income not of one but of four individuals. These four individuals on average perceive 20,000, that is 20,000 per capita. Secondly, Garza García is a low populated conurbated suburb of a much larger metropolitan area. I do not know the specifics of Monterrey's metro area, but say, for the sake of the argument, that Garza García is mostly a financial or industrial sector with a small urban area. As such, its GDP would be impressively large, even if most of the income is perceived by non-residents who live in Monterrey, or any other conurbated municipality. By contrast, if Garza García is mostly a residential sector with little to none commercial and industrial zones, then its GDP will be too low in spite of the fact that it could be the residential area of the richest families in the metro area. Since Garza García is part of a much larger system (if you will), these figures must be interpreted accordingly. It makes more sense to talk about the GDP per capita (income per capita) of the whole metro area than just of a suburb.
In summary, do not confuse GDP per capita (known in economics as income per capita) with household income (as reported by CONAPO). Household income is not income per capita, but income per household.
--the Dúnadan 16:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why Monterrey wouldn't have the highest GDP per capita/income per capita

And speaking of GDP per capita, I noticed that the Economy section states that the city's GDP per capita is the highest in LA at around 11,000 USD. I find this figure objectionable on three grounds:

  • It has been argued that Garza García's GDP per capita is above 22,000 USD, therefore Monterrey's cannot be the highest in LA,
  • CONAPO published the recent figures for 2005 in which Mexico City (proper) had a GDP per capita of around 17,000 USD, again, Monterrey's GDP per capita cannot come first; and
  • the source for the claim, the Chilean magazine "América Economía" is arguably reporting GDP per capita of the metro area and not of the city proper (for example, the list reports a population for Monterrey of 3,5, that of the metro area, since pop. of the city proper is only 1,1), therefore, it could be argued (if América Economía is indeed engaging in original research and a trustworthy academic publication) that the metro area's GDP per capita is the highest in LA, but not that of Monterrey.

Before changing it (which could produce an unnecessary edit war) I wanted to comment on that first. --the Dúnadan 17:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is not about Garza García, it is about Monterrey. Sure, Garza García as part of the larger system may be included in the article, but I believe it to be more useful to use a metro-area wide statistic for this particular article. If none exist, then we can build one based on existing sourced material (like the CONAPO report, and the World Bank statistics, and even the HDI index for Mexico).
High inequality is a very large problem in Monterrey, however, based on what I have seen, I have the suspicion that this is due to the fact that a sizeable minority of ultra rich and ultra poor exist (and not because the ultra rich and ultra poor actually live side by side, but because of the extremes, despite the low numbers in the population on either side). In my experience, Monterrey is the city in Mexico with the most solid middle class. Hari Seldon 04:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you in all you say. But my point here is that the claim about Monterrey having the highest GDP per capita is incorrect. If at all, that belongs to Garza-García (as a city) or to the whole metro area (if comparing across metro areas). It is the claim that I find objectionable. All the other stuff about household income is a separate issue. --the Dúnadan 04:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Fully agree with Dúnadan...Neither the the city of Monterrey nor the municipality of monterrey has the highest GDP per capita...the data belongs to San Pedro Garza-García. Abögarp 03:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


I'm sorry, but this article talks extensively about both the municipality and the metropolitan area.
Personally, and since this article has been like this for a long time, I don't see a reason to have this article be exclusively about the municipality and make another one about the metro area.
Perhaps it would be more useful to fix this article so that it makes clear when is it talking about one, and when is it talking about the other.
And I see as perfectly valid that, when talking about the metro area, talk about specific areas about it. For example, a compromise could be, "San Pedro Garza García, a municipality in Monterrey's Metropolitan Area, is the municipality with the highest HDI in Mexico, and is second only to Delegación Benito Juarez"...
Would this be fair? Hari Seldon 04:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we should write one article about both city and metro. We would be confusing the reader. Not only that, in fact, the table of data and the population figure refer to the municipality of Monterrey, not to the city. That is actually the case with almost all the articles of cities in Mexico (confusing municipality with city) whereas in the articles of US cities clearly distinguish between the county and the city (see for example San Diego, California (city) and San Diego County, California), even if they are coextensive.
If there wasn't an article about Garza-García, then I would include the info. here, but we do have an article about Garza-García. I believe we can mention a few facts about the metro area (like pop. and the place of Monterrey within it), but nothing else. The metro area is extensive and important enough to have its own article. I know there is an article already: Metropolitan area of Monterrey), but it is too small, and only includes pop. figures. It could be extended to create an article with the quality of New York metropolitan area or Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex, Greater Vancouver, etc. in spite of the existence of New York City and Dallas which do not conflict with the former. The articles of the cities do not include non-related information (i.e. Plano's GDP or Fort Worth's international companies are not mentioned in Dallas, unless they belong to both cities, like the DART transportation system).
I was actually trying to get rid of all info about the metro area in Mexico City in order to expand Metropolitan Area of Mexico City. I have also complained about the "transformation" of the municipalities of Guadalajara's metro area into "boroughs" of the city (as they were reported in the article).
--the Dúnadan 04:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
After reviewing the article on San Pedro Garza García I see there is a lot of overlap both in pics and content. I think we can make a good article on the Metropolitan Area of Monterrey, and then prune both Garza-García, Monterrey and other municipalities of the metro area; make them have the same table, a similar map, and links to each other. --the Dúnadan 20:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Future of the article, municipality or Metro area?

Ok, so far us the editors have been very negligent in the organization of the information of this article. Some of it is only about the municipality, Monterrey, and other is about the Metro area. It is time to wikify and organize.

Dunadan has proposed that the information about the metro area be moved to Monterrey Metropolitan area, however, I have proposed that this article is merged with that one (and the name "Monterrey" remains), while Monterrey (municipality) can be enriched with information pertaining only to that municipality.

Of course, I do not know if there is an existing wikipedia policy that we must follow, but my proposal is due to the fact that, unlike other greater metro areas (like Mexico City), Monterrey's metro area is so vastly interdependent within itself that it makes no sense talking about only one municipality. Indeed, it would be like having only one article about "Delegación Benito Juarez" called "Mexico City", and then linking to all other "Delegaciones" separetly, and treating the "DF" as a separate article. It simply makes no logical sense. There are buildings in the city, like the Estadio Universitario, or the Plaza Comercial Valle Oriente, that are part in one "municipio" and part in another. The interconectivity of the metro area, and its interdependence makes it common the treat the whole metro area as one single entity.

In fact, as you know, several of the government agencies (like municipal police and transit agencies) collaborate extensively, to the point that it is not uncommon to see a policeman from San Pedro in Monterrey, or viceversa. Same goes for the public transportation system, the TV and radio stations, the road network, and so on... Simply put, Monterrey's metro area is not treated by local people by separate entities, except for formalities, and there is no reasn why wikipedia should.

Of course, either way (weather we chose to have this article be about the Metro area and have a separate article about the municipality, or viceversa) would require the deletion, or at least merging of an article. Having the article Monterrey (municipality) would be redundant if this article talks about the municipality only. In the same manner, if this article will talk about the metro area, then a separate article for the metro area would be redundant.

Editors, I invite you to express your opinion. What will be the future of this article? You have my opinion, and Dunadan's. Please, now express yours.

BTW, if someone finds if there IS some wikipedia policy about this, then it should come before our opinions. Editors, please investigate.

Hari Seldon 04:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I am still hesitant to accept using Monterrey as the article for the whole metro area for the following reasons:
  • Convention: I do not think there is de jure policy in Wikipedia regarding naming conventions for metropolitan areas, but a de facto rule in which cities of most of the major (if not all) articles of cities retain the name (e.g. Los Angeles, New York, Tokyo, London, Paris, Barcelona, Dallas etc.) properly differentiated from the metro areas (e.g. Greater Los Angeles Area, New York Metropolitan Area, Greater Tokyo Area, Greater London, Paris metropolitan area, Metropolitan Area of Barcelona, Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex etc.).
  • All metro areas are interdependent (in fact, that is the very definition of metro area: cities/municipalities that heavily interact with each other). Therefore, all metropolitan areas have metropolitan commissions and intermunicipal agencies (in public transportation, security, and obviously, media). In spite of that, each city/municipality is still jurisdictionally and administratively autonomous (and most have their own article here in Wikipedia). In that sense, Monterrey Metro Area is no different from any other metropolitan area.
  • The case of Mexico City is a little more complex. Delegaciones are non-autonomous boroughs. As such, they are not municipalities; delegaciones resemble the New York City Boroughs, administrative divisions within the city, given the size of the both cities (around 8 million inhabitants). Querétaro, for example, is also divided into boroughs, in spite of forming a large urban area with another municipalities. In that sense, Mexico City is coextensive with the 16 boroughs, whereas Monterrey is coextensive with the municipality.
  • I also believe that if we use Monterrey for the metro area, we would cause confusion, in that people would think that the concept of city transcends that of municipality (like it does in Chile). I have been engaged in a discussion with a user in Talk:Mexican Federal District; I have been (unsuccessfully, so far) trying to explain that there is no Mexico City outside Mexico City (that may sound redundant, but the limits of Mexico City are the Federal District limits, so the discussion goes as: there is no Mexico City outside the Federal District, but a metropolitan area integrated by different adjacent cities; Ecatepec is not Mexico City, but part of Greater Mexico City). We would produce a similar misunderstanding here.
  • Finally, (and foremost), I believe that we must use INEGI's or CONAPO's usage of the terms of metropolitan areas and cities. True, until recently, the concepts were somewhat ambiguous (especially about Mexico City), but since the late 1990s they have published several works to clearly and thoroughly define and delimit metropolitan areas in Mexico to the point of even distinguishing amongst localidades, cities, municipalities and metropolitan areas. A new commission on environment, now has even suggested the term megalopolis to define the urban belt across central Mexico. I believe we should stick to this nomenclature, simply because it comes from an official institution.
--theDúnadan 05:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I know that, at least in the state of Arizona, jurisdiction of a municipality within the state is kept only internal to the municipality. Despite economically or culturally being interdependent, governamentally, they are quite autonomous.
However, in the case of Monterrey, even though there is no written law about this, the Monterrey metro area is sometimes treated de facto as a single entity. Despite each having their own mayors, common regulations on transit, criminality, zoning and construction are kept similar if not equal. In this case, Monterrey is a "de facto" single entity, and is treated as such by the state, by the inhabitantes, and sometimes, even by the mayors, who despite being of different political parties, will cooperate enormously in common projects of city infrastructure, security, and development.
The main issue here is that Monterrey is unique in Mexico in that 95% of the population of the State reside in the metro area, and also 95% of the economy of the State is generated in the metro area. This doesn't happen in other States like Jalisco, Estado de México, or Puebla, where despite the large connurbations of Guadalajara, Mexico City outer periphery, or Puebla, other cities (like Puerto Vallarta, or Toluca) carry significant weight and importance in the economy of such states. In contrast, most of the attention of the governor of Nuevo León goes to the metro area. This further incentives Monterrey's metro area to be treated as a de facto single entity.
In fact, it has been debated from time to time to officially (legally) create such single entity within the State. However, due to the present political conditions, in which the Governor and State Congress are from different parties, and the fact that there are so many municipalities being governed by different political parties, this seems like a long-shot. Regardless, the "de facto" integration exists.
And as I said, just as Mexico City's boroughs case is unique, so is Monterrey's.
I understand your concerns about what has been common in wikipedia, but frankly, Monterrey is neither New York City, nor Paris, nor Tokyo. Its own culture and reality has helped form it. This isn't a city, like most metropolitan areas, that in recent years has been united by connurbation (i.e., the amalgamation of urban areas due to the simultaneous growth of them). The municipalites have been built to function together and as a singularity. This is present, as I said, in the shared infrastructure built with shared investment, the shared regulations, and the treatment it gets from the governor.
And since this is the culture that has been built by the inhabitants themselves, I would recommend that this is the treatment the city gets in the article. Unless, of course, there is a good enough reason not to (i.e., it is against explicit wikipedia policy), or the majority of editors refuse.
Either way, this is my proposal. However, no matter what we chose to do, I find it unacceptable that Monterrey has an article of its own, and an article for the municipality, and an article for the metro area. This just confuses the reader. A strategy of documentation must be designed. As I said, my proposal is that "Monterrey" is the article for the metro area, but even if editors agree to not do it this way, I urge for a common strategy and prompt clarification.
Hari Seldon 08:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't have an article for a municipality. The municipality, for most practical matters, is the city itself, just like the Federal District is Mexico City. I checked INEGI and the municipality of Monterrey is conformed by one city (coterminus). I know you think Monterrey is unique as a metro area, but I don't see any difference, say from Barcelona. Almost 90% of Catalunya's population lives in Barcelona metro area (or Urban Region of Barcelona), and, for most matters, all that you say that happens in Monterrey happens in Barcelona. That is the very definition of a metro area: interconnected municipalities that share everything (except autonomy). But, again, forget about any other city in the world and the de facto convention in Wikipedia (of which Monterrey would be the only exception). The only reason (good enough for me) to oppose that, is that INEGI and CONAPO (the "supreme" authorities in this matters) clearly define cities and metropolitan areas in Mexico, and Monterrey is a city. The "Área Metropolitana de Monterrey" is comprised by the city of Monterrey (of which it is the core) and several other cities. If we don't use the official definition, we misinform the reader, and we keep on promoting the false idea in Mexico (like in Mexico City and Guadalajara) that cities transcend municipalities, when in fact, they don't. If we truly want to be accurate and NPOV, I would not use Monterrey for the metro area.
--theDúnadan 17:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, those are pretty good, solid arguments. I propose an open poll.
Now, I don't necessarily object your reasoning or your proposal, Dunadan, I only feel that the case of Monterrey is, in fact, unique in Mexico. As I said before, this isn't like Barcelona, that gained a metropolitan area through connurbation. Monterrey gained a metropolitan area through design and government policies that encouraged the integration of the municipalities, since very early in its history. Additionally, and contrary to what happens with the metro areas of most other cities in Mexico (except, perhaps, Guadalajara and Mexico City), the metro area of Monterrey is almost 50 years old. It isn't as recent a phenomenon as that of other cities...
I repeat to you, Monterrey is given by the State of Nuevo León a "de facto" treatment of a single entity in many official issues. This is something I have yet to see in, for instance, the Metropolitan area of Mexico City, or Torreon, (though, of course, in those cases the issue is more complex because the metro area trascends state boundaries)...
So yes, the "official definition" of CONAPO and INEGI is one, but the "official treatment" of the State of Nuevo León does not necessarily match. It would be equally misinformant to the reader to not let them see this.
We are still at an impasse. We can make this article about the municipality and talk about the municipality's relationship to the metro area and the legal priviliges the State gives it, or we can make this article about the metro area and talk about the official definitions of INEGI and CONAPO and how they are not 100% according to the official behavior of the State of Nuevo León.
So, I propose an open poll and let all editors decide. As for me, I don't specifically oppose your proposal if it were chosen, but I would prefer my proposal for the above reasons.
In any case, part of the proposal is to avoid redundancies. Whatever the topic of this article, if it mirrors that of another article, the other article must either be erased, or have it redirect here.
Hari Seldon 18:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I guess I didn't explain myself properly, so I will try to rephrase my argument. I fully agree with you that there is an agglomeration in Nuevo León that functions and is treated as a single entity [which is the case of ALL metropolitan areas in the world... it is not something unique to Nuevo León]. True, this conurbation in Nuevo Leon works as a single entity in privileges, official issues, metropolitan commissions, public services, government policies, and its constituent municipalities are fully interdependent amongst themselves, and some of then function merely as suburbs of the core which is the city of Monterrey. I don't disagree with you. However, I disagree in the attribution of a name that does not belong to it. This "entity" does exist, but it is not Monterrey, it is properly called the "metropolitan area of Monterrey". In other words, I oppose the name that you want to use to refer to this entity, because in spite of being a single entity that receives a unique treatment as a single conurbation, legally it is formed by several cities of which Monterrey is only one.
To put it in other words, the practical treatment that it receives does not invalidate neither the constitution of the state of Nuevo León (which defines the existence of municipalities), nor the political administration set by INEGI and CONAPO. We are talking about apples and oranges when you speak about "official treatment" not matching "legal definitions". They don't match because they are two different things: one is jurisdictional the other is practical administration. Or, to put it differently "concepts" do match, because Nuevo León treats the metropolitan area as a metropolitan area (i.e. one single urban entity), and CONAPO calls it "metropolitan area of Monterrey". Like I said, the issue is not the existence of such a unique entity, but the name that you want to use to call it. Even when Nuevo León treats the metro area as a single entity, it properly refers to it as the "metropolitan area of Monterrey" to distinguish it from the core, the city/municipality of Monterrey.
I am hesitant when it refers to opening a poll, because we are not talking about perceptions, but about legal definitions. Had I open the poll in Mexico City, I know of many users that dislike the fact that Mexico City is the same thing as the Federal District, and say that Mexico City should refer an redirect to the whole metropolitan area. But that simply contradicts both the constitution, the statute of autonomy, and INEGI. The same thing would happen here.
--theDúnadan 19:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that most arguments from Hari Seldon are valid but not correct. I believe that arguments from Dúnadan are good and solid. Nuevo León, as any other state in México has subdivision named municipalities. One of Nuevo León's 51 subdivisions is the municipality of Monterrey. The municipality of Monterrey has boundaries that are clearly defined (legally and geographically). The municipal seat of the Municipality of Monterrey is located in the city of the same (But thats not the rule in Mexico where many municipalities are named differently than the main city included in that municipality: some exaples are Villahermosa, Cancún, Chetumal, etc..) We have to keep article Municipality of Monterrey as a separte article. The municipality of Monterrey also includes within its limits other population centers such as Los Cristales or el Uro that are not part of the city but part of the municipality. (Similar than in Apodaca where Santa Rosa or Huinala are small towns that are not part of the city of Apodaca but part of the municipality of Apodaca). Anyone living in Los Cristales is living in that population center but not in the city of Monterrey. Finally the Monterrey Metropolitan area refers to the metro area but not to the city of Monterrey or the municipality only. I cannot understand why HSeldon is proposing to have article Monterrey refering to the whole Metro area. Abögarp 19:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Whatever decision we take, we have to make it a universal decision for all Mexican cities and metro areas. Our "collaborative" friend User:Raveonpraghga is saying that the city = metropolitan area in Talk:Guadalajara. I still disagree with his version that ayuntamientos are for municipalities and not for cities. But this shows that this issue needs to be solved and a norm be set to prevent edit wars. --theDúnadan 01:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. The issue is complex. I take Abögarp's opinion seriously, however, isn't it INEGI and CONAPO that take this particular municipality and the city of Monterrey to be one and the same? After all, both El Uro and Los Cristales are governed by the Ayuntamiento de Monterrey... I simply don't see a reason to have an article about the municipality if we are going to have an article about the city proper that is different from that of the metro area.
Anyway, after reviewing all arguments, I think that the best option would be to delete this article, and build upon the articles of Monterrey (municipality) and Metropolitan Area of Monterrey.
This article can redirect to Metropolitan Area of Monterrey (the most common usage), which will also have links to the municipality. What do you think?
Hari Seldon 02:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

That would indeed be a bold [and original] move. I am not quite sure if we should do it, I still think that the core city should retain the name as it is the de facto convention here in Wikipedia, even with small cities vis-à-vis large metro areas (like Washington D.C.). Moreover, if we set a precedent here, a similar proposition could arise in Mexico City (should it redirect to Greater Mexico City?), Guadalajara, Puebla, Toluca and all are equally valid. However, I do not oppose the move completely (I would be open to explore this possibility). Let's wait to see the opinion of other users. --theDúnadan 03:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Hari. I don't know how it is in other countries, but in Mexico, it is very frequent that metropolitan areas are considered a single city or entity. In Monterrey the case is even more particular, since the division of the municipalities is almost just nominal, because everybody consider the city to be all of the municipalities. A person from San Nicolás de los Garza or San Pedro Garza García often and almost exclusively refer to him/herself as "regiomontano/a". AlexCov ( Let's talk! ) 09:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to disagree. Metropolitan areas are, by definition, a single entity, but not a single city (or more properly a multi-city single entity) by definition (any language). Moreover, even if colloquial usage (exclusive to Monterrey, I dare to say) considers it to be a single city (that is, even if you live in Garza García, you think you live in Monterrey), jurisdictionally and politically, the metro area is just a metro area constituted by cities and municipalities. In fact, metropolitan areas in Mexico (by CONAPO, INEGI and Sedesol) are very well defined (see: Demographics of Mexico or Metropolitan areas of Mexico). Moreover, even Garza García residents pay local taxes at Garca García's city hall (ayuntamiento). There is no ayuntamiento for the metro area. The ayuntamiento of Monterrey has jurisdiction only over the city/municipality of Monterrey. The only supra-municipal entity is the state of Nuevo León's government. Even the title "ciudad de Monterrey" (which you had recently added in the infobox) refers only to the coextensive municipality. In other words, the metro area exists as an entity of municipalities/cities, without any jurisdictional representation... that is the very definition of metropolitan area. --the Dúnadan 15:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of Monterrey

Please, create a list of picture or graphics that may be needed to improve this article's quality. I'm in Monterrey and I can provide them. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 13:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/o/n/Talk%7EMonterrey_b5dd.html"