Why is São Paulo seemingly a non-event outside of Brazil?

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Thee are preferences, each one to their own, but it’s an objective point: food and party scene in São Paulo is several times larger, more creative and diverse than Rio. There is not even comparison. Rio must be compared to Belo Horizonte, not with São Paulo. Rio became a dull and uninventive scene. Good for (foreign) tourists though.

I went to Rio (but not Sao Paulo) a few years ago. Overall, I thought it was an awesome place - loved the geography, the cityscape, the history, the beaches, etc. - though just as far as nightlife & culture went, I did find it felt a little quieter than expected. Still, I think it's the type of city that's more easily digested for a week or two-long vacation. 

I can definitely see Sao Paulo being the better city to live in on the other hand - it's more culturally dynamic, better economy, safer, etc. But it's not necessarily a city that's well-suited for a quick visit. Moreso, it would be seasoned urban travellers looking for a different experience that's a little more off the beaten path that would be most drawn to Sao Paulo. The main challenge is that for those of us in North America or Europe who are into that sort of thing, it's just so far away. 

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Yes, I agree with this comment. São Paulo would be a Texas or Atlanta, while Rio is analogous to a big northeast city that has experienced status decline. Montreal is probably the best analogy to RJ, but Rio is still clearly the bigger cultural draw. Maybe modern SP and RJ are analogous to 1970s or 1980s Toronto vs Montreal.

The Toronto-Montreal comparison (or Madrid-Barcelona) sometimes gets brought up as an analogue to Rio-Sao Paulo, which sort of works as a generally smaller & more tourist-friendly city vs a bigger & more diverse one comparison, but not much beyond that. Toronto & Montreal are a lot more obviously similar in terms of built form, geography, and climate than Rio & Sao Paulo; while on the other hand are more culturally distinct - one is the undisputed centre of Anglo Canada while the other of Franco Canada. 

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Toronto & Montreal are a lot more obviously similar in terms of built form, geography, and climate than Rio & Sao Paulo; while on the other hand are more culturally distinct - one is the undisputed centre of Anglo Canada while the other of Franco Canada. 

I'm not exactly sure of how much this plays into it, but there is a Carioca (Rio) vs Paulista (SP) culture at play in Brazil. Carioca culture is synonymous with the international image of Brazil. To my understanding, Paulistas are known to be more buttoned up... Something more analogous to New Englanders in the U.S., or Anglophone protestants in Canada.

[muppet]

I'm sensing that many people categorise on here, far too easily.

I've always found that when you put 25 million individuals in a place -even an empty room - the whole gamut of human experience will manifest itself.
The 16 personality types in every culture will create - good and bad and amazeballs.

SP is helped by its economic rise right now, that lends towards more of the positive in opportunities, in funding, in change and experimentation. I would think it's a bit sweeping
and short sighted to generalise so many souls as one and the same otherwise, or the experience of such a multitudinous place as identical to each other; in one's own individual /
short experience in such a mass.

For example, I visited Venice and found it as fantastic in every possible way (sign of culture shock btw), whereas my travel buddy who's been a zillion times found it boring AF
and lacking culture, real culture - nothing but a crumbling tourist park, that's pushed out its own identity for a fast buck. I saw the opposite. And that's a place of less than 200,000 souls.

In short SP cannot be summarised, just like NYC, Tokyo or entire countries of equivalent populations can't be, good or bad, no matter how many times we change the goalposts on here
-whether it's suddenly not a party city, or it is but something else is now awry, or whether Rio features on it.

But hell, there is definitely an upward trajectory and blossoming of culture there, absolutely powered by Paulistanos themselves and social change -the alternative and art scenes,
the experimental nightlife, music, subcultures and shrugging off of social mores, plus fall of the bling brigade that used to rule the roost. I think this simple pic says way more than the initial
normality of the built environment:



In short, think about what makes a place or time zeitgeist - it's the people, not necessarily face value. Not saying the SP is unimpressive in its built environment or history, which it has
plenty of to celebrate, but one's missing out if you regard that as the be all and end all of a place (just look at Berlin). SP combines both right now -anything goes, and precisely off the
radar that's making it such an unknown draw.


Culturally, societally, what made this picture possible? What forces behind government, human endeavour, mistake and experimentation on such scale... Cricket anyone?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Why visitors must be foreigners? Locals, domestic tourists don’t count because…

Because of the reasons explained in my post.

According to your logic, Tokyo’s Shinjuku Station is one of the world’s main tourist magnets, it attracts like one billion people per year.

[muppet]

I think that's a false dilemma there - asking about the difference between domestic and foreign tourists (of leisure) in a place isn't equating to counting commuters around the world.

[CaliNative]

Everybody agrees that SP is a "world city", a great and economically powerful city, the "alpha dog" in Brazil and probably In South America, although Buenos Aires might come close. The question is, does it have compelling reasons for people to travel across the Earth on long flights to visit it? Does SP have must see museums, amusement parks like Disneyland and Disney World, shopping areas, beaches (no), luxury resorts where tourists could relax, unique scenery that could compete with Rio? If not, maybe it should work at developing such attractions if it wants to compete for tourists as well as in the business and financial area.

But if a tourist travels half way around the word to see Brazil, with Rio being the main attraction perhaps, they are perhaps likely to also visit Sao Paulo, Iguasu Falls, the Amazon, perhaps Salvador, and perhaps the other places like Buenos Aires, Montevideo, Patagonia, Machu Pichu, etc. This could be their only trip to South America. Much like a tourist coming a long way from Asia or Europe to San Francisco on a long vacation or tour is also likely to visit Napa Valley, the redwoods, Big Sur, L.A./Hollywood, Disneyland, Las Vegas, perhaps San Diego, the famous national parks like Grand Canyon, Zion, Bryce, Death Valley, Yosemite, etc.

Cities in a region benefit from having a package of attractions in a region that attract long range tourism. Tourists with a couple of weeks or more usually sample the region, not just one place. They might not be back, so try want to check off the famous places. Sao Paulo tourism benefits from having Rio nearby.

Final comment: non coastal cities are usually at a disadvantage as tourist draws. Maybe just be content being SP, the big dog of South America (or sharing the crown with BA perhaps). An envial place. Who needs tourist hoards anyway?

[streetscaper]

Originally Posted by muppet

I'm sensing that many people categorise on here, far too easily.

I would think it's a bit sweeping and short sighted to generalise so many souls as one and the same otherwise, or the experience of such a multitudinous place as identical to each other; in one's own individual /
short experience in such a mass.

And this sounds like a strawman. I might've missed it but I don't see anyone generalizing the people of SP. A few categorized the dominant built form of the city, but don't see why that would be illegitimate.

-whether it's suddenly not a party city,

Are most people saying it's not a party city, or are most people saying it's merely not KNOWN as a party city (and even if it were known, is that enough alone to draw tourists?)

[muppet]

It was a direct reply to the post above it:

Originally Posted by iheartthed

To my understanding, Paulistas are known to be more buttoned up... Something more analogous to New Englanders in the U.S., or Anglophone protestants in Canada.

.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by streetscaper

And this sounds like a strawman. I might've missed it but I don't see anyone generalizing the people of SP. A few categorized the dominant built form of the city, but don't see why that would be illegitimate.

Are most people saying it's not a party city, or are most people saying it's merely not KNOWN as a party city (and even if it were known, is that enough alone to draw tourists?)

Exactly. These are all strawmen. SP isn't globally known as a party city; SP doesn't have a global rep analagous to Rio. Not really controversial statements. Doesn't say anything about whether someone can subjectively determine whether SP is a great party city or worthwhile of a top-tier global rep.

[muppet]

So, tell me why are we even arguing?


If we can all suddenly decide that SP is a party city after all, after so many pages -but not famed (outside Brazil specifically), how is this fact in answer to these questions, when already acknowledged from the outset?

Originally Posted by destroycreate

Disclaimer before I get dragged - I know my take is more of a Euro/NA centric view.

Unlike other major megacities of the world, São Paulo (22M+ people!) which is the economic powerhouse of this country doesn't seem super romanticized or desirable from a global media/collective consciousness perspective. Yet from what I hear, the quality of life and safety is far better there than Rio, and it's extremely diverse and cosmopolitan...and it represents a microcosm of the multi-faceted nature of Brazil.

Aside from distance, what hinders São Paulo's status as a premier tourist destination in the league of Tokyo, Mexico City, Shanghai, NYC or London?

Originally Posted by craigs

What qualities does Sao Paulo possess that are unique to that city?

If someone answers to the last one that SP is a party city, and the biggest one (regardless of fame or not), which is what makes it unique - why is there so much pushback, concentrating on the fame aspect, and suspicion on the record figures?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by muppet

If someone mentions SP is a party city, and the biggest one (regardless of fame or not), which is what makes it unique -

But it isn't. No sane person would claim that SP has a global reputation analogous to that of Ibiza, Bali, Vegas, South Beach, etc. It's well known as a business center and megacity, not as a place of leisure. Whether this is warranted is another question, but its image clearly isn't the Latin American Ibiza.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by muppet

I think that's a false dilemma there - asking about the difference between domestic and foreign tourists (of leisure) in a place isn't equating to counting commuters around the world.

So if I set up a “Come check out the Great Lio45’s epic performance!” lemonade stand in the middle of Shinjuku Station and I manage to get a million people per year to at least pay a tiny bit of attention to me, then I am officially a good attraction, just based on my raw numbers (“attracted a million people!”), despite it being a quite poor attraction rate given the enormous pool of locals that are right there?

We’ll have to agree to disagree if you don’t get that.

[muppet]

Originally Posted by Crawford

But it isn't. No sane person would claim that SP has a global reputation analogous to that of Ibiza, Bali, Vegas, South Beach, etc. It's well known as a business center and megacity, not as a place of leisure. Whether this is warranted is another question, but its image clearly isn't the Latin American Ibiza.

Sure, but no one claims it's image is (even if in reality). I've not been talking about SP's image here the whole time folks, but what's actually happening in the city - that's pretty obvious. We've all acknowledged from the start that SP suffers from a lack of global PR (the original question from the outset for starters), so why are arguing about what's happening on the ground?

[muppet]

Originally Posted by lio45

So if I set up a “Come check out the Great Lio45’s epic performance!” lemonade stand in the middle of Shinjuku Station and I manage to get a million people per year to at least pay a tiny bit of attention to me, then I am officially a good attraction, just based on my raw numbers (“attracted a million people!”), despite it being a quite poor attraction rate given the enormous pool of locals that are right there?

We’ll have to agree to disagree if you don’t get that.

Once again you're laying a false dilemma. What part of asking about the difference between local and overseas tourists equates to a difference between a shitty (sorry about your lemonade, I'm sure it's not that bad) attraction and a worldly one?

My answer could be, say price to pay to get there (eg requiring a second flight), distance crossing oceans, the presence of the more famous Rio etc as opposed to one being shitty and the other being a great magnet. -To reiterate this is not about the image Im talking about.

On the same lines I could lay my own false dilemma here too. As mentioned before I could bring up the subject of other cities, like Chicago, that on your 'logic' Chicago must be shitty because out of its 50 million visitors, only 2 million are foreign and sizeable chunk of them Canadians from the nearby border.

But of course that isn't what you're saying, and its obvious Chicago isn't crap, nor a lemonade stand.

[streetscaper]

Originally Posted by muppet

It was a direct reply to the post above it:



.

So one person said that and then you super generalize to "many people categorise on here, far too easily."... you're generalizing about people generalizing lol

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

But it isn't. No sane person would claim that SP has a global reputation analogous to that of Ibiza, Bali, Vegas, South Beach, etc. It's well known as a business center and megacity, not as a place of leisure. Whether this is warranted is another question, but its image clearly isn't the Latin American Ibiza.

Right. São Paulo isn't even Brazil's Ibiza lol. And Brazil does have towns that are Ibiza-esque.

[iheartthed]

So far, the only people who find it controversial that Rio is a better urban experience than SP are people who haven't ever been to Brazil, and the one person who lives in São Paulo.

[streetscaper]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

So far, the only people who find it controversial that Rio is a better urban experience than SP are people who haven't ever been to Brazil, and the one person who lives in São Paulo.

lol yeah, I was gonna mention that too. multiple people who have been are giving their genuine sentiments, and they're being brushed off by someone who's never been. The arrogance.


......

Also partying isn't unique to SP. Even if the claim to largest party city is legitimate (that'd be debatable for some people depending on what you're into) that's not a unique enough feature imo. It certainly may be a definable feature, but other cities are very defined by their party mecca vibe as well and may also offer more than just that.

I like dining out, but I'm not gonna be compelled to go to fly across the world just because a city claims to have the most restaurants in the world when other cities also have a plethora of good restaurants plus more sights to see.

[lio45]

You can’t distinguish “it’s silly to count a person crossing Chicago’s city limit coming from Oak Park, IL as a full-fledged “visitor to Chicago” in the stats” from “Chicago is shitty” ? I’m saying the former, not the latter.

For a real-life example: I did a quick google search and it seems that Mexico’s Zocalo (central plaza) is one of the world’s busiest “tourist attractions”. I’d disagree that it’s in the top three most visit-worthy places on the planet. It’s very visited only because there’s like 20-25 million locals right there around it.

[Nouvellecosse]

Often tourist numbers are counted in terms of overnight visitors to distinguish from people who just happen to be handy. But that's visitors to a city or region rather than a specific attraction. I'd say that does make sense because it shows people are willing to exert greater effort to visit a place and are probably spending more money there. But just counting domestic vs international makes less sense because some countries have larger populations and land areas than others. A visitor to Chicago from LA or Quebec City from Calgary is probably committing just as much money, time and effort as someone visiting Paris from Brussels. If there was a way to compare attractions in terms of people in town overnight that would be useful in determining how big a "draw" the attraction is.