Patagonia, Argentina & Chile v South Island, New Zealand

Two of the most beautiful places on earth, home to snow capped mountains (the Andes and Southern Alps), lakes of every shade of blue, epic and easily accessible glaciers, and some fantastic walks. Having spent a few weeks exploring Patagonia (Torres del Paine in Chile, and El Chalten, El Calefate and the Argentinian part of Tierra del Fuego) the obvious comparison for me is with the South Island of New Zealand (in particular the West Coast, Fjordland, Nelson and Mt Cook regions), in terms of the landscape and as places to visit, primarily for walking.

For reference the pictures alternate equally throughout this post between New Zealand and Patagonia, pretty similar!

Getting there
The infrastructure for both has developed hugely over the past decade or so, primarily for tourism, with new or expanded airports in El Calefate, Ushuaia, and Queenstown. There are unpaved main roads in Patagonia, but these are reducing, and the long haul buses are generally modern and comfortable. Patagonia is complicated by being split between two countries so expect time consuming travel across the borders, and the distances involved are further so expect more of your trip to be spent travelling. However travelling from Europe or the US there is less time difference to adjust to, 3-4 hours from Europe to Patagonia compared with ~12 hours for New Zealand. Speaking Spanish will help hugely in Patagonia, and do expect a slightly more flexible approach to timetables than New Zealand.

DSC_0702DSC09378

Main hubs
In Patagonia the two main walking spots are El Chalten in Argentina and Torres del Paine in Chile, with El Calefate the main glacier hub. The New Zealand equivalents are Te Anau, Queenstown and Nelson, and Fox and Franz Josef Glaciers.

IMG_0439 DSC09415

Scenery
I thought Patagonia would look a lot like New Zealand, and so it turned out to be. Spot the difference…

DSC_0837

DSC09374

IMG_2056 Lake WakatipuDSC09336

IMG_0405DSC09916There are some notable differences though.

Forests – Though both have large amounts of beech trees New Zealand bush is super dense, I’ve never seen forest like it outside of tropical rain forest. Patagonian forest is more European in terms of the spacing between trees. Personally I think New Zealand bush is more interesting and varied, and it certainly makes it harder to get lost as anything but the path is usually impenetrable.

DSC02083

DSC09576

DSC08462

DSC09497

Mountains – New Zealand has some pretty impressive mountains, but nothing to match the shape of Patagonia’s granite outcrops, particularly in Torres del Paine.

DSC00018 DSC00202

Wildlife – New Zealand has almost no native mammals and there have been huge efforts taken to eradicate introduced species like possum, mice and stoat, so almost every track has pest traps along it. There is birdlife but not huge amounts, though if you’re lucky you’ll get to see native pigeons, fantails, and the Kea, a super smart alpine parrot. El Chalten had relatively more, with seemingly less easily scared birdlife including colourful woodpeckers, and El Calefate had flamingos in the lagoons. In Torres del Paine are guanaco, red foxes and puma, though also less welcome are the horses and the mess they leave on the track.

IMG_0670DSC09017

Weather
Both are famous for four seasons in one day, from super strong sunshine to torrential rain in a short space of time, but Patagonia was markably more extreme. Ambient temperatures in Patagonia are also noticeably lower, by at least 10C, making camping a chilly experience.

Walks
Both offer some of the best walks in the world, from the famous W in Chile’s Torres del Paine to New Zealand’s Great Walks for multi-day experiences, and brilliant day walks in El Chalten and the Queenstown, Arrowtown and Wanaka areas. However the condition of the tracks in Patagonia were poor in comparison with New Zealand, with poorly maintained / absent signage, little surface grading, few bridges and an almost complete absence of steps or boardwalks. These make the tracks more difficult to walk, but also result in far more erosion and damage to the environment. For example the Cerro Guanaco Track in Tierra del Fuego National Park crosses a sizeable bog, an environmental sensitive area, but poor signage and zero boardwalks result in people tramping over the entire area. The equivalent in New Zealand would be properly protected and marked, even without having to pay a fee to enter the park in the first place.

DSC08845 DSC09814 DSC02462 DSC09985 DSC08869 DSC01019

Glaciers
Patagonia wins hands down here, in terms of the quality, quantity and accessibility of glaciers. Perito Moreno Glacier is an absolute monster, unlike anything else I’ve seen, while seemingly every walk in El Chalten or Torres del Paine included seeing multiple glaciers. Fox and Franz Josef glaciers are surrounded by forest which is unusual and impressive, but since 2015 it hasn’t been possible to walk on either without a helicopter flight, thanks to climate change.

DSC_0503 DSC09298

Popularity
Both are increasingly popular places to visit, but judging by Christmas / New Year trips to Patagonia and Fjordland / Nelson they seemed equally busy in terms of the number of people on the tracks. The visitor stats however suggest that Patagonia is more popular, or at least areas of it, with 150,000 visitors to Torres del Paine each year compared with 80,000 people doing at least one of the nine Great Walks in New Zealand.

Food
If you love meat, pasta and pizza then Patagonia is the place for you. If you like to even occasionally eat something else, or have more than a token amount of vegetables with your meal, then you’ll be out of luck. Eating out in Argentina was a highly variable experience, less between restaurants and more between menu choices, with as many bad as good meals had. New Zealand, particularly in Queenstown or Nelson, offers far more variety and far more consistency. It is also much better stocked with food for walking, with readily available dehydrated meals, decent sandwiches (retaining their crusts!), and fruit (helped by it being grown locally rather than having to travel 3,000km).

DSC01110 DSC09186 Fergburger

Accommodation
The classic New Zealand multi-day walking experience is to stay in huts, which for a low cost offer shelter and warmth. In Patagonia (and to be honest most other places in the world) I didn’t see any real equivalents, it was either camping or upmarket lodges (both also options on New Zealand walks). The camp grounds in Torres del Paines seemed particularly space constrained, and as with almost everywhere in Patagonia plumbing seemed to be an issue. They did have showers though, which is something New Zealand huts lack. In the hubs themselves New Zealand though has the advantage of contiguous pavements, and no wild dogs roaming the streets.

DSC08332 Whakapapaiti Hut

DSC09797Summary
Patagonia has the edge on glaciers, wildlife, and mountains, while New Zealand beats it on food, accommodation and infrastructure. If you live in New Zealand it is certainly less compelling to visit Patagonia, due to the similarity of scenery, better infrastructure, travel time and cost, and time difference. It’s a closer call for those living in the US or Europe, with Patagonia offering arguably better sights, but with more time and effort required to visit them. New Zealand is brilliantly set up for travellers, Patagonia is getting better all the time but I suspect will never be as easy to visit. You can’t go wrong with either though in terms of enjoying nature at it’s most spectacular.

8 thoughts on “Patagonia, Argentina & Chile v South Island, New Zealand

  1. Thanks so much for your excellent write-up. I went to the South Island of NZ for 2.5 weeks this year in late February/early March and am now considering a trip to Patagonia (both Argentina and Chile) next year. I loved the South Island (I have no interest in the North Island) and was wondering if Patagonia would be similar and/or worth the money. I need to decide if I want to go back to the South Island again and do what I missed this past time or travel to the new terrain of Patagonia. First world problems, huh? Decisions, decisions. Happy travels to you!!!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Glad you found it useful. Depends a bit on where you’re travelling from? Patagonia is more accessible if you’re in North America or Europe. In 2 & 1/2 weeks you’ll have left plenty more of the South Island to do on another return trip. I won’t write off the North Island completely, Tongariro National Park is a pretty amazing place, completely different to anything on the South Island.

      Like

  2. Hey, thanks so much for your brilliant write-up, comparing two of the places I am dying to visit. On the surface, both looks similar and offers stunning vistas. However, if needed to be picked then which one will you suggest, basis your experience?
    I am looking for a romantic vacation – to see nature closely and travel lesser known paths
    Vegetarian and based out of India

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thanks MD, glad you liked it.

      I am somewhat biased living in New Zealand but it can definitely offer what you’re looking for, and is a easier place to get to from India, and travel around. There are also much better eating options. Argentina in particular is a paradise for meat lovers, much less so for vegetarians.

      Like

  3. Pingback: Most popular posts of 2016 | jontynz

  4. I am currently in the south island of NZ and got back this morning from an overnight on Doubtful Sound, and experience never to be forgotten. We are visiting from UK. During this trip I have seen both Fox and Franz Josef glaciers, having previously been to Perito Merino and the two in NZ come NOWHERE near close to the magnificence of Patagonia’s glacier. It is truly in a class of its own.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Completely agree, Perito Merino is quite phenomenal. I revisited the New Zealand West Coast glaciers last month, quite shocking how much they’ve shrunk in the five years since I last visited. Such a visible sign of climate change.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s