History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Since 1325, the area we know today as Mexico City has held some sort of cultural or historical bond. The bond is so strong that, no matter what, no matter how bad a shape the country gets, they always return to it even though the entire city is sinking into the earth as we speak ... at just a few centimeters a year.

There have been several times throughout history where Mexico "temporarily" changed its capital city to Querétaro, Querétaro. The change would never last over a year before they moved it back to Mexico City.

My question, what is so special about the Mexico City area that causes the government to return to it every time? Even if they got into a situation today where they had to relocate the capital city, I am by now convinced that they would in fact return to it ... with all its air pollution, toxic waste and overfilled landfills.

Is there a definite reason for this or does the Mexican government just aim to use Mexico City until all of the buildings collapse. I even read an article published November 1949 in Popular Mechanics were they were pitching construction techniques to accommodate for the sinking. I am baffled.

share|improve this question
Isn't this simply a matter of the historical center for the Aztec empire? As well, the emblem of the Mexico flag (eagle, snake, cactus) come from the legendary founding of the city. – New Alexandria Nov 22 '12 at 8:37
Historical to the 14th century, yes. Even though the emblem of their flag originates there, all of the most important events in Mexico, from the Mexican-American War to the creation of the 1917 Constitution happened elsewhere. Everything that I have read mentions a return to Mexico City. Other than the Aztecs stumbling upon a vision given to them by a diety, nothing significant ever occurred there. Throughout Mexico's history, the area is fought over several times, yet these struggles never occured within the city itself. – dockeryZ Nov 22 '12 at 9:10
May be of some use: books.google.com/books?id=J_wzOoGtYQoC&pg=PA110 – kubanczyk Nov 22 '12 at 13:15
Apart from the comments above, the question itself could be answered as "there's no real answer": Venice continues to sink every year, NY is one of America's dirtiest and polluted cities: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_New_York_City and Budapest has not changed locations since 1 AD (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest#History) - yet people still live on these cities. It's like asking why Japan continues to build buildings in such a seismic area: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seismicity_in_Japan. I don't believe there's an actual answer for this question, it just is. – Darred Nov 23 '12 at 5:19
BTW, here is an interesting map of Mexico City from 1522. (Just came across this while preparing another question.) – Drux Jan 9 '13 at 22:45
up vote 2 down vote accepted

Many capital cities are located at a confluence of available water, moderate climate, and transportation intersections. This would describe Paris, London, Rome, and Mexico City. Many capitals in the US, including many state capitals, are 'in the middle' of two powerful interest groups. The US capital is situated on the boundary between what were Slave and Free states.

If one looks at Mexico from the satellite maps, the east lowlands are hot, humid, and exposed to hurricanes, the west is mountainous, the north is desert, and the south is jungle. I've driven through Mexico City, and it is polluted, but I noticed immediately that aside from that the climate was pleasant. The area is halfway between the Pacific and the Caribbean, keeping it from baking in the summer as would happen if it were farther north.

One other temporary capital of Mexico has been San Louis Potosi. I spent a day in the downtown touring some of the colonial buildings.

share|improve this answer
Minor correction. Both of the bordering states to DC were in fact slave states. Why a non-neutral site was picked is explained nicely by following the link in this answer. – T.E.D. Aug 27 '13 at 16:20

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.