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

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Why on Earth would Brazilians bother going to Punta Cana or Cancun when they have some of the most beautiful beaches in the world at home? Punta Cana is also a "beach town" that was planned to cater to American tourists. It's really just a bunch of walled off all-inclusive resorts lined up next to each other on the beach. It is one of the few places that I swore I would never visit again in my life.

It's not my cup of tea personally but I think there are few places in the western hemisphere that offer flight-hotel-all-you-can-eat-and-drink fun as cheaply as the Cancun region, the Dominican Republic and, for non-Americans, Cuba.

[hughfb3]

In addition to what others said about the iconic attractions in Rio v São Paulo, Rio was also the capital of Brasil or however that land was organized (kingdom to country) since the 1700’s. There are still people alive that remember Rio as the iconic capital. Brasil for decades promoted itself to the world off of its capital city and to my knowledge hasn’t done a big campaign on Sap Paulo on the level and scale of its promotion for decades of Rio.

Also, I’m one of those LA people that can’t wait to go to Mexico City. Many big city US people have long ago been to the beach towns of Mexico and now it’s all about the big city and historical sights, food and culture that the ancient Aztec capital has to offer. Rio is much like Mexico City in that it has a long history and is or has been the center of that country’s culture. Rio has both

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's not my cup of tea personally but I think there are few places in the western hemisphere that offer flight-hotel-all-you-can-eat-and-drink fun as cheaply as the Cancun region, the Dominican Republic and, for non-Americans, Cuba.

Yeah, I get the underlying why. Those places are generally pretty affordable. And Americans, at least, tend to be a bit scared of these third world places (sometimes with good reason; Mexico, Jamaica and the DR have their issues) so it's really easy to go to an all-inclusive where you don't have to do any planning. Just not my cup of tea, with generally crappy food, doing nothing all day but drink and visiting a country while not actually seeing the country or experiencing anything remotely cultural. Also, re. beaches, I like open oceans, so not a fan of the bathwater-type Gulf or Caribbean beaches. Definitely prefer places with surf.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Wrong, the Mexican federal govt. trucked in the beaches

i can't find any source on the internet that backs up your claim that cancun's beach itself was "trucked in" by the geovernment or that's it's artificial.

yes, the barrier island was expanded with landfill backwards into the lagoon to make more room for the massive resort compounds, but everything i can find points to the white sand beaches and turquoise blue waters being natural to the area.

in fact, the gorgeous beach and water appear to be the very specific reasons why the area was chosen by the governement to be built up into a major beach vacation destination.


here are the best photos i can find of what cancun's beach looked like before it was completely taken over by the resorts:


source: https://www.planet-mexiko.com/yucata...cun-tourismus/


source: https://blog.xcaret.com/en/cancuns-h...d-its-beaches/


source: https://www.yucatan-holidays.com/fea...ncun-was-born/

[Crawford]

I'm not seeing the disagreement here. Cancun is artificial. The govt. built out the barrier island, the beaches, the roads and the first dozen or so hotels. I have no idea if there were beaches on that island (seems reasonable that there were some), but the beaches you see today were built in conjunction with the hotel strip.

Also, those three pics you posted clearly indicate they were taken during construction. The island was uninhabited, with zero infrastructure. The only human presence was occasional fishermen, from a nearby village. In the pics there are condos, hotels, roads, vehicles etc. None of the pics show the beforetimes, when there was no bridge, nothing.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by badrunner

If you're concerned about security stick to Baja. There's long been an American expat community there and is generally perceived as being safer than the mainland Pacific coast resorts (cartel central).

That's good to hear. A road trip down the Baja peninsula is on my bucket list.

[Crawford]

Baja has far more murders than California, so I'm not sure I'd call it safe. But it's far from the worst Mexican state, and the Mexican crime stats are probably junk.

Narcos have heavy control over Sinaloa, Tamaulipas, Colima, Michoacán and Guerrero. I'd generally avoid all those states. Also most of Jalisco (excepting Guadalajara and beach resorts) and Guanajuato. It's pretty sad how the security situation keeps reaching new lows. My wife's family feels near-imprisoned right now with narco activity in their rural home (though they spend most of their time in Mexico City). Mexico City is safe, and the resort areas like Cancun/Riveria Maya are safe.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's not my cup of tea personally but I think there are few places in the western hemisphere that offer flight-hotel-all-you-can-eat-and-drink fun as cheaply as the Cancun region, the Dominican Republic and, for non-Americans, Cuba.

Brazilians can definitely do this more cheaply at home. Mexico and the DR are like 8+ hour flights from the major cities in Brazil, so I don't see how in the world a Cancun or Punta Cana vacation gets marketed to Brazilians.

I was bored out of my mind by the end of my 4 day trip to Punta Cana. Brazil has beach towns that are light years more fun, have much better beaches, and are as safe as any beach town in the world. It is bizarre that a Brazilian would fly all that way to have a mediocre experience in Cancun or Punta Cana lol.

[hughfb3]

None of the above post have anything to do with the topic at hand about Brasil

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i can't find any source on the internet that backs up your claim that cancun's beach itself was "trucked in" by the geovernment or that's it's artificial.

yes, the barrier island was expanded with landfill backwards into the lagoon to make more room for the massive resort compounds, but everything i can find points to the white sand beaches and turquoise blue waters being natural to the area.

in fact, the gorgeous beach and water appear to be the very specific reasons why the area was chosen by the governement to be built up into a major beach vacation destination.

Cancun certainly had beaches before the resorts, but much of their current postcard appearance is sand that has been dredged and deposited over decades. That’s pretty universal for Beach resort areas in the Caribbean and Gulf.

I would expect Cancun in its natural state to have had more scrub and mangroves.

Natural Mexican Beach

Substantial, beach restoration projects in the area have been conducted twice this century already. With the local government spending close to 110 million dollars in restoration projects in 2005, and 2013. Another restoration was reportedly planned for 2020

According to geological experts Cancun’s beachfront issue isn’t just something that can be solved by pumping more sand into what are effectively man-made beaches in some cases. Part of the problem may be the weight of the hotels themselves. As well as, the initial environmental calamities that were committed when building the area. Coastal Mangroves, and other types of vegetation that originally protected the shore line were removed when building many of these hotels back in the 70s.

https://thecancunsun.com/cancun-hote...-mass-erosion/

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

It is bizarre that a Brazilian would fly all that way to have a mediocre experience in Cancun or Punta Cana lol.

At least Cancun has nearby Mayan ruins. There's nothing left in Hispaniola. But yeah, that's pretty crazy, flying from southern Brazil to an all-inclusive resort in North America.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Shawn

I'd say anecdotally this is spot-on, especially if you include Bermuda in the mix. It's only 4 and a half hours from Boston to Aruba. Under 4 to the Bahamas. 4 on the dot to San Juan PR. The Caymans and USVI are popular too. Flights are usually around $300 on the low end, so definitely accessible.

just looking at nonstop flights, bos-wash is better connected to the carribean than the midwest is, which makes sense from a geographical and immigration perspective

as someone else mentioned, a lot of that is due to the fact that bos-wash cities have a lot more carribean-descended people than midwest cities, but i also have to believe that creates a positive feedback loop that, because there are more flights to more islands, bos-wash people are more likely to vacation on those islands.

now, absolutely none of this is to say that no one in the midwest goes to the carribean, or that no one in bos-wash goes to cancun, i'm just talking about very general inclinations and which direction the scales tend to tip. kinda like how bos-wash retirees tend to go to atlantic coast florida and midwest retirees tend to go to gulf coast florida. those aren't close to being absolutes, just general trends.



total nonstop carribean island destinations by city:

new york: 27
boston: 13
DC: 11
philly: 10
baltimore: 7
hartford: 2


chicago: 10
minneapolis: 7
detroit: 3
st. louis: 3
cleveland: 2

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Compared to Spanish Latin American capitals São Paulo lacks grand baroque architecture and has a comparatively short history as a major city . As a history buff I’d rather go to Mexico City or Lima

Indeed. Even though São Paulo is 466 years old and it's been always a relatively important centre for Brazilian colonization (the Bandeirantes), it only started to grow faster by the turning of the century with the European mass immigration.

It cannot compare to those grand Spanish capitals or not even with Rio de Janeiro. São Paulo was an industrial city that has overgrown in a completely unexpected way. It would be like if Chicago had turned out the US largest city. By far.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I'm not seeing the disagreement here. Cancun is artificial. The govt. built out the barrier island, the beaches

my point is that the barrier island and its beach were there before any hotels were built.

the area was chosen specifically for its beach and turquoise waters.

yes, the construction of the myriad resort compounds has radically reconfigured the island, but it wasn't built in a vacuum, wholely creating something out of nothing. the island, beach, and water were there, and mexican officials were like "holy shit, this place is gorgeous! let's turn it into one of the planet's largest beach vacation destinations and make billions!!!"

[iheartthed]

A lot of the flights from NYC to the Caribbean are at odd hours to accommodate people flying to/from the Caribbean to visit family. The airlines do this to keep the workhorse aircraft (737s, A320/1s, etc) utilized as much as possible, and still available to handle the more lucrative domestic routes during daytime hours.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by hughfb3

In addition to what others said about the iconic attractions in Rio v São Paulo, Rio was also the capital of Brasil or however that land was organized (kingdom to country) since the 1700’s. There are still people alive that remember Rio as the iconic capital. Brasil for decades promoted itself to the world off of its capital city and to my knowledge hasn’t done a big campaign on Sap Paulo on the level and scale of its promotion for decades of Rio.

Also, I’m one of those LA people that can’t wait to go to Mexico City. Many big city US people have long ago been to the beach towns of Mexico and now it’s all about the big city and historical sights, food and culture that the ancient Aztec capital has to offer. Rio is much like Mexico City in that it has a long history and is or has been the center of that country’s culture. Rio has both

Good points. Brazilian government has always promoted Rio de Janeiro while São Paulo was left alone. It had to conquer its space by itself and it kinda did: it became Brazilian primate city and its a much bigger reference domestically than Rio.

And regarding Rio, most tourists have no idea how rich its their architecture and historical heritage. They have churches, palaces, a 200 y/o botanic garden, that could fit in any big European city. For people into this kind of things, it's also an amazing city.

[WhipperSnapper]

Populous business city for a country with a per capita GDP in 75th place. It doesn't really stand out for either population or for business on a global scale.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Populous business city for a country with a per capita GDP in 75th place. It doesn't really stand out for either population or for business on a global scale.

Do people visit cities based on GDP per capita lists?

And population?!?! São Paulo is one of world’s largest cities and it’s one of the most important business centre in the world. It’s a massive banking, financial and logistical hub.

That doesn’t necessarily make it worth visiting for foreigners, but it’s a very important city.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Populous business city for a country with a per capita GDP in 75th place. It doesn't really stand out for either population or for business on a global scale.

Now do China lol. Per capita GDP is a meaningless metric to measure global business importance.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Yeah, but most of the recent hype around Mexico City revolves around a narrative that its this artsy bohemian mecca for remote work, which is odd. Almost like a bigger Berlin. It's still a third-world city, with all kinds of challenges. I really like the city, but still wouldn't move my family there unless I was a fugitive or something.

IMO, Americans pick really weird places in Mexico. They love San Miguel, and basically ruined the town, which wasn't that great to begin with, and ignore nearby Guanajuato, which is like 100x better. They go crazy for Cancun, which is just a 1970's govt. project to put hotels on artitifical beaches on the crappy Gulf. Really cool Pacific beaches in Ixtapa-Zihuatanego and tons of unspoiled beach towns in Oaxaca and Chiapas are ignored. Now Mexico City is the New Berlin, when there's basically one neighborhood with that feel, and most of Mexico City is endless functional 1970's concrete blocks and quasi-freeways.

and the antithesis to that is la frontera, aka the border regions, which i explored and enjoyed end to end over several years. it's a true and complete mix of of usa and mex cultures. its both of them and neither. its its own thing. they have their own food, music and way of doing things. its an interesting culture. and so much more than the dangerous drug cartel crime or the senor frog's media perception.

the border is also very highly touristed by anyone who is visiting in the area and by daily business and trucking and commuters and shoppers and the like. yeah and the migrants too. massive visitation in fact and no doubt way more visited than the rest of mexico is in total, but unsung here when it comes to mexican travel. so just sayin.