# Morelia expat community?



## esga

After a trip to Ajijic and Chapala last month, we expect to relocate to Chapala as a "landing place," depending on what the rental market is like next spring. We liked Chapala a lot, but I don't know if we will stay there; I worry about continuing increases in housing costs if the flood of incomers continues. I have heard lots of good things about Morelia, but would like to hear from people who live there now, or have lived there recently. I understand the expat community is very international, not so US - and Canadian- dominant. I speak Spanish but my husband doesn't, yet, so I am looking for a place where he can make English speaking friends. We are both retiring in the spring before we move. I am a member of the Yahoo group for Michoacan, but that's mostly people in Patzcuaro. One thing we learned during our visit Lakeside is that we want a larger town or small city -we don't seem to be village people!


----------



## circle110

I spent some time in Morelia studying Spanish but never actually lived there. I didn't come in contact with an expat group while I was there so I don't know anything about them.

I like Morelia a lot but we never go visit any more because my wife is afraid of the Michoacan cartels' activity in the region. I'm not so worried about it but I don't force her to go where she'll be uncomfortable.

I'll put in my plug for Queretaro. It seems that it would fit your requirements pretty well. We lived in Guanajuato and found it to be a little too provincial for our tastes and decided to move to a larger city. Queretaro is population 800,000 compared to Morelia's 600,000 so it is a little bigger.
Morelia made my short list of places I would want to live.


----------



## esga

Thanks, Circle. We are looking for a city with a vibrant colonial center. What I have seen of Queretaro leads me to think it's an economic powerhouse where it would be hard to find anything a bit more traditional. But I could easily be wrong! We will "land" in Chapala and look at a few other places. I like the size of Morelia. Puebla I think is too big. So I will look again at Queretaro . . .


----------



## circle110

esga said:


> Thanks, Circle. We are looking for a city with a vibrant colonial center. What I have seen of Queretaro leads me to think it's an economic powerhouse where it would be hard to find anything a bit more traditional. But I could easily be wrong! We will "land" in Chapala and look at a few other places. I like the size of Morelia. Puebla I think is too big. So I will look again at Queretaro . . .


Queretaro's centro is in a league with Morelia's, easily. It is very much a colonial city -- I believe that it is the oldest of all the colonial cities, if I am not mistaken.
I have noticed that the architecture of the rest of the city outside the centro is more modern in style than anywhere I have seen in Mexico except perhaps Monterrey, so if you want an old hacienda style house, you'll need to be looking right in the centro. 

Actually, now that I think about it, Morelia has a ton of the same kind of 'privadas' (housing communities) that Queretaro has located all around outside the centro because I was looking at them to calculate housing costs when I was considering living in Morelia.

Puebla at 1.4 million is pretty darn big although I didn't get that 'huge' feeling when we visited there. It is very nice but it just didn't call to us as a place to live.


----------



## horseshoe846

We live in a 'city' with a population < 500,000. But that city has many neighborhoods which are very distinct. The closest neighborhood is pre-hispanic (the church was built in the early 1500s). These people have their own culture, their own law, even their own language. If I told you the city we live in you would not get a correct view of where we 'live'. It is like if you were to ask me where we lived in the US and I were to say Miami. But - we really lived about an hour north of Miami, in a small waterfront community, with a boat docked in the back yard and within 15 minutes (at idle) of the ocean. Is that what you conjure up when you think of Miami ? 

My point is - you have city centers which have concentric neighborhoods sprawling out to more concentric neighborhoods - each of which are totally unique experiences. 

We never sought out 'vibrant colonial centers' - but over the years I guess Tlaquepaque comes to mind (visited during the week). Also Puebla (visited during the weekend). Puebla (for us) is a very interesting place.


----------



## citlali

Vera Cruz, Mexico City, Acapulco, San Cristóbal de las Casas are older than Queretaro by a few years.. Querétaro came along around the same time as Puebla and Oaxaca.


----------



## citlali

> Vera Cruz, Mexico City (1519), Acapulco(1525), San Cristóbal de las Casas (1528) are older than Queretaro(1531) by a few years.. Querétaro came along around the same time as Puebla and Oaxaca,


I believe Tlaquepaque mansions were built in the 19th century by rich Tapatios who wanted some country places. The village of Tlaquepaque was a Nahual village( prehispanic) known for their potters.

Cortes lived in the Cuernavaca area so he had several buildings built there as well, his palace, churches and so on..also before Queretaro was on the map as a colonial city..


----------



## horseshoe846

citlali said:


> Vera Cruz, Mexico City (1519), Acapulco(1525), San Cristóbal de las Casas (1528) are older than Queretaro(1531) by a few years.. Querétaro came along around the same time as Puebla and Oaxaca,





> I believe Tlaquepaque mansions were built in the 19th century by rich Tapatios who wanted some country places. The village of Tlaquepaque was a Nahual village( prehispanic) known for their potters.


You are wasting your talent. You should write a book


----------



## circle110

Yes, if you are just looking at cities generally in Mexico that is true. But Vera Cruz, Mexico City (1519), Acapulco(1525), San Cristóbal de las Casas (1528) are not generally considered "the colonial cities of Mexico". So, I still think that Queretaro is the oldest of the colonial cities. Your post gives actual data to support that fact.

Obviously, just about every city south and west of northern Texas was colonial in the strict sense of the term since Mexico on south was originally a Spanish colony, but the term "colonial city" is applied to a certain group of cities. Here is one list I found and the others were almost identical. None of the cities you mention are on any of the lists.

Oaxaca
Campeche
Dolores Hidalgo
Merida
Morelia
San Miguel de Allende
Tlaxcala
Aguascalientes
Cuernavaca
Guanajuato
Puebla
Queretaro
Taxco
Valle de Bravo


----------



## TundraGreen

circle110 said:


> Queretaro's centro is in a league with Morelia's, easily. It is very much a colonial city -- I believe that it is the oldest of all the colonial cities, if I am not mistaken.
> …


Your comment about the age of Qro prompted me to look up the founding dates for various cities (mostly these reflect Spanish occupation, the villages preexisted in many cases).
Mexico City
- Mexico City (Tenochitlán Aztec) - 13 March 1325
- Mexico City (Ciudad de Mexico Spanish) - 13 August 1521
Cuernavaca
- Cuernavaca (Tlahuica) - 12th century
- Cuernavaca (Spanish) - 6 June 1529
Puebla
- Puebla (Teohuacan) - 30,000 BC
- Puebla (Spanish) - 16 April 1531
Querétaro - 25 July 1531
Ciudad Valles - 25 July 1533
Ciudad Guzman - 15 August 1533 
- Ciudad Guzman (Originally Pueblo de Santa María de la Asunción de Zapotlán)
Guadalajara - moved several times before finally settling in its current location 
- Guadalajara (Nochistlán) - 5 January 1532
- Guadalajara (Tonalá) - 8 August 1533
- Guadalajara (Tlacotán) - 13 May 1535
- Guadalajara (Atemajac) - 14 February 1542 Official date
San Miguel de Allende 
- San Miguel de Allende - 1536 mission failed
- San Miguel de Allende - 1542 restablished
Zacatecas - 8 September 1546
Guanajuato - 1546
Oaxaca
- Oaxaca - 1500 BC
- Oaxaca (First Spanish arrival) - 25 November 1521
- Oaxaca (Settled) - 24 June 1548
Aguascalientes - 22 October 1575
San Luis Potosi - 1592

Most of the dates come from Wikipedia en Español. The Spanish pages are generally more complete than the English pages for these cities.


----------



## circle110

TundraGreen said:


> Your comment about the age of Qro prompted me to look up the founding dates for various cities (mostly these reflect Spanish occupation, the villages preexisted in many cases).


Ah, so I was wrong! 
Cuernavaca is the oldest of the colonial cities and Puebla and Queretaro tie for second. Thanks for that post!


----------



## citlali

wrong again San Cristóbal de las Casas was founded in 1528 and it was built as the first cities here were built, first the center where the Spaniards lived then land around the center then the barrios where the friendly indigenous were placed to protect the Spaniards. So Queretaro was not the second colonial city --INAH considers San Cristóbal a colonial city and thy should know...


----------



## citlali

Mexico city was founded before Queretaro or Cuernavaca as well...so forget second or third city as well..


----------



## esga

Circle 110 i looked at Queretaro again and it certainly looks like a great place to live - but maybe more for people who are still working. I like Tequisquiapan too. I wish i could find a place that has a somewhat cohesive ecpat community outside og GDL/ Chapala.


----------



## circle110

citlali said:


> Mexico city was founded before Queretaro or Cuernavaca as well...so forget second or third city as well..


I have never heard anyone call CDMX a colonial city. 
Queretaro or Cuernavaca, yes.


----------



## citlali

And you do not think of San Cristobal de las Casas as a colonial city so apparently your definition of what is a colonial city is very limited to a very small list.. Just about all colonial cities have colonial centers and lots of no so attractive buildings past that.. so why do you think Mexico city is different?
There is nothing colonial outside of the center of Querétaro, Oaxaca, Morelia, Puebla, San Cristobal, Campeche, Cuernavaca and on and on..
Mexico city has beautiful colonial buildings just like any of the other colonial cities you are mentioning
Your list is a rather tunnel vision of what is colonial or what foreigners decide is a colonial city..


----------



## esga

As the original poster could I suggest that the discussion of what defines a colonial city would make its own fascinating thread? People who are interested won't find it here. I guess I will start another post for info on Queretaro and Tequiasquiapan as retirement destinations too.


----------



## Isla Verde

esga said:


> As the original poster could I suggest that the discussion of what defines a colonial city would make its own fascinating thread? People who are interested won't find it here. I guess I will start another post for info on Queretaro and Tequiasquiapan as retirement destinations too.


Tequiaaquiapan? I think you mean Tequisquiapan.


----------



## circle110

citlali said:


> And you do not think of San Cristobal de las Casas as a colonial city so apparently your definition of what is a colonial city is very limited to a very small list.. Just about all colonial cities have colonial centers and lots of no so attractive buildings past that.. so why do you think Mexico city is different?
> There is nothing colonial outside of the center of Querétaro, Oaxaca, Morelia, Puebla, San Cristobal, Campeche, Cuernavaca and on and on..
> Mexico city has beautiful colonial buildings just like any of the other colonial cities you are mentioning
> Your list is a rather tunnel vision of what is colonial or what foreigners decide is a colonial city..


OK, you seem to have a lot of skin in this game so I will concede. I was simply passing along information on what others seem to think based on my searches for the terms "Mexican Colonial Cities". I personally don't much care about classifications one way or the other so I think I will drop out of this thread -- it has drifted pretty far from the OP's intent anyway.


----------



## TundraGreen

I am probably foolish for getting in the middle of this food fight, but …
There seems to be some ambiguity about whether Mexico City should be included on the list of "Colonial" places. Obviously it was established when Mexico was a Spanish colony. However, some lists seem to just include smaller Mexican towns.


----------



## citlali

Ha ha ok it is a big city with a colonial center... How about Campeche or Tlacotalpan? Maybe Tlacotalpan is a village..but Campeche?


----------



## TurtleToo

citlali said:


> And you do not think of San Cristobal de las Casas as a colonial city so apparently your definition of what is a colonial city is very limited to a very small list.. Just about all colonial cities have colonial centers and lots of no so attractive buildings past that.. so why do you think Mexico city is different?
> There is nothing colonial outside of the center of Querétaro, Oaxaca, Morelia, Puebla, San Cristobal, Campeche, Cuernavaca and on and on..
> Mexico city has beautiful colonial buildings just like any of the other colonial cities you are mentioning
> Your list is a rather tunnel vision of what is colonial or what foreigners decide is a colonial city..



What's important is whether or not you want to live in a particular city, not whether it makes it onto somebody's list--or whether another person's list agrees with yours. Here's one good starter list to quibble with! 

https://www.mexperience.com/travel/colonial/

.


----------



## citlali

Would love to know what is colonial about Tuxtla, Villahermosa, Zinacantan or Chamula.... also those are 4 towns where I would not consider, if I were to move somewhere.. Colonial or not..


----------



## Isla Verde

citlali said:


> Would love to know what is colonial about Tuxtla, Villahermosa, Zinacantan or Chamula.... also those are 4 towns where I would not consider, if I were to move somewhere.. Colonial or not..


Don't Zinacantan and Chamula have colonial-era churches?


----------



## citlali

The church of San Lorenzo in Zinacantan is from the beginning of the 20th century and was remodelled in the 70´s so hardly a colonial church although there was a church way back then at that location.
There is a colonial church in town , it is the church of San Sebastian .. but one small colonial church does not make a colonial town.

The church is Chamula is from the XVI century I believe but again the town around it is not colonial . it has been rebuilt and rebuilt..There was also a San Sebastian church that may have been build in the colonial days but it burnt down so it is a ruin..
Now in many indigenous town people are building houses with flat roofs as they call the sloped, tile roof kaxlan roof and do not want to be reminded of the good old days.. The old rood are also more costly to maintain so that maybe the real reason for disappearing.

By the way Villahermosa was founded during colonial town and has some colonial buildings but the feel of the city is really not colonial


----------

