Santiago and Buenos Aires

I spent two days in Santiago, which is not too much time to place judgment on a city. I’ve spent about 2.5 days in Buenos Aires, which is also not too much time to place judgment on a place. But with that being said, here goes nothing:

Santiago is a livable city. Period. End of story. If you are in a job that would provide at least a middle income wage, Santiago would be a place most would be comfortable living in. Yes, it has over 6 million people living in it but you’d never realize it by being there. The population lays over about 245 square miles (or so). This equals to about 24-25 thousand people per square mile, which is about 8-9 thousand more than San Francisco. But the city has a top-shelf subway system. Top shelf. No doubt. In my entire life, no system was better than Santiago’s. Built in 1975, it was efficient, clean, well maintained, and comfortable. Compare that to Buenos Aires’ – built in 1913, more narrow and cramped, far dirtier, and far more crowded – and it is no contest. I don’t have data on how many people use each system, but based on numerous observations the car traffic in both cities is not bueno during rush hour times. But one certainly hears more honking in Buenos Aires given the seemingly low level of patience drivers have on the roads. And they weave in and out of lanes (creating “illegal” lanes in conjunction) far more often than their Santiago counterparts.
But Santiago is also a city that has grown by around 4 million people in the last 50 years. Buenos Aires, meanwhile, peaked at around 3 million people in 1949 and currently has about 2.8 million today. Santiago, being developed in more modern times, contains wider boulevards, more grid systems, and far more modern buildings. In fact the tallest building in Santiago was only 29 stories until 1994 and now you see a smattering of 40 and 50+ story buildings peppered along the entire city. For students of architecture, Buenos Aires provides far more outstanding works than Santiago. There is no question. The European architectural influence from the French, Spanish, and British is all over the city and it makes for quite an experience to see as a tourist. But the streets and walkways are both dirty, broken down, and in desperate need of attention. The dramatic architecture and hustle of Buenos Aires is fun and even a bit addicting, but the calmer and more ordered city of Santiago makes for a better place to live. That is my take.

Then there is the food. Chile is a seafood country. Argentina is a beef country. Both have the other as well (of course). But based on my tastes, I’ll take the seafood any day of the week. Santiago treated me to some of the best damn Seafood soup (yeah, I capitalized it because keeping a lower case seemed insulting given how delicious it was) I’ve ever had. Prawns, mussels, salmon chunks, oysters cooked in the broth, rich tomato-based broth with garlic. Just perfect. Then you throw in the well-known Chilean Sea-bass at its source…..heaven on freakin’ earth. I had my steak dinner in Buenos Aires, but it just did not live up to the seafood in Santiago (and Valparaiso and Santa Cruz in wine country).

Then there are the issues of the economy and currency. Santiago is currently a boom-town of sorts. Construction is all over the place – new buildings sprouting up it seems in every neighborhood. Except for the stray dogs (which they are known for), you don’t see many people on the streets appear homeless or hungry. Though there are a few. In Buenos Aires, the locals are dealing with a president who wants to possibly change the constitution so she can run a third term, the locals can’t buy U.S. dollars based on government policy, the economy is flat-lining, import taxes are through the roof (thus making prices on imported goods quite expensive), and a palpable sense that the country is going in the wrong direction and going nowhere fast. And there aren’t many cranes around town.

That being said, each place has their strengths. The pizza in Buenos Aires – with that strong Italian influence – is quite delightful. I think they beat Santiago in that department by a long shot. However, Santiago hits back with a hard right by not charging me “cover” money just to eat at their restaurant. Buenos Aires does this – no joke. But Buenos Aires comes back and provides one of the most beautiful cemeteries in the Recoleta neighborhood – with beautiful mausoleum’s that include none other than the site where Eva Peron rests. Santiago has less chaotic traffic and well-groomed parks while Buenos Aires’ appear a bit more strewn and disheveled in comparison.

But what both have are touchy political pasts. Eva Peron – who according to some locals “is still alive” in spirit – and her husband Juan Peron are beloved or treated with an eye-roll depending on who you talk to. Through both observations and discussions, Eva’s spirit “is still alive” for better OR for worse depending on who you talk to. Touchy subject in these parts for sure, but what is even touchier is the subject of Pinochet in Chile. In all museums that discuss the history of Chile, the displays magically cut off in 1973 which is the year Augosto Pinochet was placed into power (with help from the United States government) as part of an overthrow of the Salvador Allende presidential administration. It is such a touchy subject to this day because you have many who believe Pinochet did great things for Chile which include putting forth economic policies that helped develop the economy into what it is; however, others despise him for the brutal (and in some cases deadly) torture he implemented on political dissidents. The argument can be made that both sides were right – he did a great deal in growing an economy that had 100% inflation and was closed to foreign trade prior to his regime – and sadly at the same time it has been confirmed more than numerous times that he both killed and tortured hundreds and thousands (respectively) of political dissenters. I don’t know what the official breakdown is, but I would bet that the split between pro and anti-Pinochet is as close as the Gore-Bush 2000 election results. And though the economy may have performed better, torture and government-sponsored murder did not occur under Allende. Then again, as one cab driver mentioned to us in support of Pinochet, “at least nobody was hungry and starving in the streets.” Touchy subject to say the least. And being an American knowing that Nixon-era covert operators supported and helped overthrow a democratically-elected Socialist leader in Allende does not make me feel comfortable discussing such a subject with a native Chilean. But when it did occur, it was better to just listen and hear the Chilean side of the story firsthand.

On a lighter note, the wines of both cities (and countries) are delightful. Whether it is an Argentinian or Chilean Malbec or a Chilean Carmenere, they have all been just delightful. Throw in the fact that both countries do not skimp on tasty breads at the dinner table nor the olive oil, and there are some nice little commonalities. But if I was forced to pick one over another thus far, it would just depend on the situation. For travel, Buenos Aires is far more geared toward the tourist while Santiago is far more geared towards livability in conjunction with a far stronger economy. So though one would have to deal with the consistently high levels of smog in Santiago (given it sits 1700 feet high in a Valley with the Coastal Ranges to the west and the gorgeous Andes to the east) instead of the “Good Winds” of Buenos Aires, I very much enjoyed the cleaner and more orderly manner at which things operate in Santiago. But sometimes you need that hustle and bit of addictive chaos thus it has been a treat to experience both over the past 4.5 days.