I have been reading a lot about urban issues lately. But I coun't find a satisfying answer to the following question:

Why is Latin America highly urbanized (same level as western countries and continets) while other previously colonized continents (Africa and Asia) with many developing countries are not?

Thanks for your profound answer. ;)

I think that one possible reason is the time that we are independent from Europe and that in LA we dont have as many conflicts as the rest of the world (asia, africa and middle east). And of course, in Brazil, lots of natural resources and loooots of lands.

Maybe because we once were one of the richest countries on Earth (Argentina).

The colossus of the north (United States of America) is perhaps the most urban country on the globe. It's mere presence on the western hemisphere is a huge influence on the rest of the continent - Latin America. It's former presence in the Panama Canal zone in particular has had - to say the least - an effect on Panama...Have you seen Panama City lately?!

WARNING: This thread could have a very short shelf life. The Grim Reaper (wjfox2002) could pull the plug on this thread. Any free speech regarding countries, or (in some cases) states is strictly taboo. This person is listed as a "moderator", but in reality he/she is a censor...

Also, it was a continent, like North America, that had a very low population pre-European settlement, whereas Asia and Africa were much more settled.

Isnt South America mainly catholic? If so, that means a much higher birth rate.

that isnt necessary related, european catholic countries have low birth rates and maybe south american countries will have low birth rates in a few decades who knows..

There is not as much poverty in Latin America as in most African and some Asian nations.

The colossus of the north (United States of America) is perhaps the most urban country on the globe. It's mere presence on the western hemisphere is a huge influence on the rest of the continent - Latin America. It's former presence in the Panama Canal zone in particular has had - to say the least - an effect on Panama...Have you seen Panama City lately?!

WARNING: This thread could have a very short shelf life. The Grim Reaper (wjfox2002) could pull the plug on this thread. Any free speech regarding countries, or (in some cases) states is strictly taboo. This person is listed as a "moderator", but in reality he/she is a censor...
You need to tone down the attitute...

And your explaination doesn't make any sense either.
First of all, the US is not by any means one of the most urbanised countries on earth (let alone the most urbanised).
Second, most of that "urbanisation" is actually suburbanisation.
Not that it matters because I fail to see what the US has to do with urbanisation in Latin America...

that isnt necessary related, european catholic countries have low birth rates and maybe south american countries will have low birth rates in a few decades who knows..
Actually only Japan and Korea are richer than all the Latin American countries. Most of the remaining ones (China, India, Thailand, Pakistan) have similar poverty rates as LA's.

I think it may be some US influence or the industries.

You need to tone down the attitute...Are you a "moderator" too?

I have three reasons why this is like this:
1.- As Samsonyuen said Latin America wasn´t very poulated before Europeans came. Most of the newcomers into the continent lived in towns and cities, as there grandsons do today.
2.- Latin America get her independence long time before most African and Asian countries (just after the French Revolution and the USA independance), after this happened a quick industralisation came to this countries (while in Africa and Asia they still were depending mostly of the farmlands). Many Latin countries get very rich (Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil) and most of them had economic booms (Peru, Chile, Colombia, Venezuela).
3.- This is the most important reason for me- Latin American governments have long time left the countryside poor while the towns recieved all the money and new infraestruture. The countryside was crush by civil wars (Mexico) Agricultural Reforms (Venezuela, Peru), Natural Hazards (Brazil), terrorism ( Colombia, Peru) or simply by extreme poverty. This made thousands, even millions of people to migrate to big cities like Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Lima, Buenos Aires, Caracas, Mexico City. This increased the percentage of urban population, although most of this new citizens lived and many still live in the hundreds of shanty towns you find in the large cities of this continent.

Latin America more than process of Urbanization, has lived a process of "Ruralization" of their cities" (Gabriel Garcia Márquez, Colombian writer)

:)

I have three reasons why this is like this:
1.- As Samsonyuen said Latin America wasn´t very poulated before Europeans came. Most of the newcomers into the continent lived in towns and cities, as there grandsons do today.
2.- Latin America get her independence long time before most African and Asian countries (just after the French Revolution and the USA independance), after this happened a quick industralisation came to this countries (while in Africa and Asia they still were depending mostly of the farmlands). Many Latin countries get very rich (Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil) and most of them had economic booms (Peru, Chile, Colombia, Venezuela).
3.- This is the most important reason for me- Latin American governments have long time left the countryside poor while the towns recieved all the money and new infraestruture. The countryside was crush by civil wars (Mexico) Agricultural Reforms (Venezuela, Peru), Natural Hazards (Brazil), terrorism ( Colombia, Peru) or simply by extreme poverty. This made thousands, even millions of people to migrate to big cities like Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Lima, Buenos Aires, Caracas, Mexico City. This increased the percentage of urban population, although most of this new citizens lived and many still live in the hundreds of shanty towns you find in the large cities of this continent.

Latin America more than process of Urbanization, has lived a process of "Ruralization" of their cities" (Gabriel Garcia Márquez, Colombian writer)

:)
I think everyone can agree that your point #2 and #3 are probably the main reasons. However for reason #1 not all of latin america was unpopulated. Teoticuacan(i probably misspelled it) had a population of about 100k when the spanish arrived and was larger than any european city at its time.

LatinLoco you are right, Central America and the Andes were well populated. But most Soth America was pretty empty though.

And your explaination doesn't make any sense either.
First of all, the US is not by any means one of the most urbanised countries on earth (let alone the most urbanised).
Second, most of that "urbanisation" is actually suburbanisation.
Not that it matters because I fail to see what the US has to do with urbanisation in Latin America...I never claimed to be a Rhodes scholar, but at least I provided fodder for you to debunk. What have you offered as an answer to the thread-starters's question? If the U. S. is not even one of the most urbanized countries in the world, then how many are there, and which are they? I belive I used the word, "Influence" to suggest what the U. S. has to do with urbanization in Latin America, particularly in Panama. And speaking of words, you misspelled urbanization with an "s" in three forms. How's that for attitude?

I think everyone can agree that your point #2 and #3 are probably the main reasons. However for reason #1 not all of latin america was unpopulated. Teoticuacan(i probably misspelled it) had a population of about 100k when the spanish arrived and was larger than any european city at its time.

I totally agree with you, but just to clarify teotihuacan had no inhabitants when the spaniards arrived in Mexico. I think that you mistaked Teotihuacan with Tenochtitlan (present Mexico City) that had almost 300,000 inhabitants, one of the biggest metropolises in the world at the time.

Actually only Japan and Korea are richer than all the Latin American countries. Most of the remaining ones (China, India, Thailand, Pakistan) have similar poverty rates as LA's.

I think it may be some US influence or the industries.

That is correct. First of all, Latin America is kind of in the middle when it comes to general development. Most SouthAsian and many a Southeast Asian countries have higher levels of povertry/lower levels of develoment than Latin America.

Although Latin America seems to be highly underrated in many other places (it is often shown as a vast extension of rainforest with indians all over the place, poorly constructed houses, very old cars, etc..), the US influence in the region is tremendous on all aspects and Americans don't even know it.

As a result, people from Europe, the US and other locations are amazed to see how many highrises we have, how developed our cities have become (despite of many problems than still need to be solved), and how organized we are getting little by little.

Actually only Japan and Korea are richer than all the Latin American countries. Most of the remaining ones (China, India, Thailand, Pakistan) have similar poverty rates as LA's.

You forgot to mention Singapore, HK, Taiwan and Brunei.

I totally agree with you, but just to clarify teotihuacan had no inhabitants when the spaniards arrived in Mexico. I think that you mistaked Teotihuacan with Tenochtitlan (present Mexico City) that had almost 300,000 inhabitants, one of the biggest metropolises in the world at the time.
lol you know more than me and Im mexican. I always get confused with the spellings of the city. I meant tenochtitlan.

edit.

Are you a "moderator" too?
No I'm a moderator.
Keep up the attitute buddy...

I have three reasons why this is like this:
1.- As Samsonyuen said Latin America wasn´t very poulated before Europeans came. Most of the newcomers into the continent lived in towns and cities, as there grandsons do today.
2.- Latin America get her independence long time before most African and Asian countries (just after the French Revolution and the USA independance), after this happened a quick industralisation came to this countries (while in Africa and Asia they still were depending mostly of the farmlands). Many Latin countries get very rich (Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil) and most of them had economic booms (Peru, Chile, Colombia, Venezuela).
3.- This is the most important reason for me- Latin American governments have long time left the countryside poor while the towns recieved all the money and new infraestruture. The countryside was crush by civil wars (Mexico) Agricultural Reforms (Venezuela, Peru), Natural Hazards (Brazil), terrorism ( Colombia, Peru) or simply by extreme poverty. This made thousands, even millions of people to migrate to big cities like Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Lima, Buenos Aires, Caracas, Mexico City. This increased the percentage of urban population, although most of this new citizens lived and many still live in the hundreds of shanty towns you find in the large cities of this continent.

Latin America more than process of Urbanization, has lived a process of "Ruralization" of their cities" (Gabriel Garcia Márquez, Colombian writer)

:)
I think these are the right explainations.
Pretty straightforward.

I never claimed to be a Rhodes scholar, but at least I provided fodder for you to debunk. What have you offered as an answer to the thread-starters's question? If the U. S. is not even one of the most urbanized countries in the world, then how many are there, and which are they? I belive I used the word, "Influence" to suggest what the U. S. has to do with urbanization in Latin America, particularly in Panama. And speaking of words, you misspelled urbanization with an "s" in three forms. How's that for attitude?
Of course in the grand scheme of things the US is a (very) urbanised country.
But many countries in Western Europe and Japan and Australia are much more urbanised.

You may think you have contributed anything to this thread, but it wasn't much more than "oh of course the US has influenced it because the US just is a influencial country..." coupled with the attitute are you surprised at my reaction?

And don't you think pointing out spelling mistakes on an international forum where most people don't have English as a first language is kind of weak?
How I spelled urbanization is how it is spelled in my language OK...

Although Latin America seems to be highly underrated in many other places (it is often shown as a vast extension of rainforest with indians all over the place, poorly constructed houses, very old cars, etc..), the US influence in the region is tremendous on all aspects and Americans don't even know it.

Only in some countries.
Brazil, the largest country in LA by far isn't that influenced by the US.
But sure countries like Mexico, Colombia, Panama are...

One possibility is that the main immigrants to L Am, namely Germans, Italians, Portuguese, Japanese came from places that were already very urban. I think of the large Jewish, Italian and German populations in Buenos Airies as an example. Parts of BA look like Milan or Munich in terms of architecture and streetlife. Similarly with Curitiba in Brazil.

the social breach in LA is freaking huge, so there are areas tremendously rich, while a few blocks down you'll find shanties.

Isnt South America mainly catholic? If so, that means a much higher birth rate.
Oh you mean like the high birth rate in spain?

that isnt necessary related, european catholic countries have low birth rates and maybe south american countries will have low birth rates in a few decades who knows..


how about you search the internet for latin american birth rates instead of just saying what you imagine? They are in decline in most countries for many years already, and some latin american countries are in the brink of the replacement level.