Your city's "Beverly Hills"

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by 10023

The second one looks like inner-ring suburbia, which is fine but just not my cup of tea. The others are pretty atrocious. So I think we agree?

I think so too! My impression of your argument was that if you think the extra low-density example was bad, you must think the inner-ring suburbia example is even worse. But if that's not the case then yeah, we're thinking along the same lines.

[Phil McAvity]

Originally Posted by giallo

I can see why the house would stick out. It was one of the biggest in the neighbourhood for quite sometime. In the late 80s/early 90s, some other mega mansions were built that were far bigger, but it still remains the big dog on Rutland Rd.

Not even close. This old house at the bottom of Rutland Rd is over 11,000 sq/ft

[Doug]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...iest-1.2714500

The wealthiest areas in Calgary are along the Elbow River. This ranks them in terms of household net worth relative to the rest of Canada. The housing price:income ratios are much lower than in other Canadian cities.

20th — Roxboro

The average household net worth in Roxboro is $6.38 million while the average annual household income is $845,038. The average home sells for $1.39 million. It ranks fifth among Alberta's richest neighbourhoods in terms of net worth but residents are in second place provincially in terms of average annual household salary and own the second most expensive homes.

19th — Mount Royal

The average household net worth in Mount Royal is $6.54 million, with most households bringing in an annual average income of $617,128. The average home sells for about $1.29 million and the analysis suggested residents here are less likely than those in other Alberta neighbourhoods on the list to take exotic holidays or take part in gallery-hopping and symphony-going.

18th — Eagle Ridge

The average household net worth in Eagle Ridge is $6.55 million and the average household annual income is $660,328. Most houses sell for abut $1.13 million and 76 per cent of residents here voted Conservative in the last election.

17th — Bel Aire & Mayfair

The average household net worth in Bel-Aire and Mayfair is $6.59 million and the average annual household income $553,556. The average home price is $1.35 million and compared to their wealthy peers on this list, residents here are the most likely to have travelled to Europe or the Caribbean lately. They're also the most avid skiers.

16th — Britannia

The average household net worth in Britannia is $7.02 million, with the average annual household income clocking in at $1.45 million. The average home sells for $2.28 million and although the neighbourhood ranks 16th in terms of household net worth, residents in Britannia have the highest average annual household income of any Canadian neighbourhood on the list.

[Dac150]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Nowadays, a brownstone Brooklyn two bedroom costs the same as a typical New Canaan SFH.

You still get more square-footage / property for your buck in New Canaan. As "yuppies" mature they will gravitate to the burbs.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Dac150

You still get more square-footage / property for your buck in New Canaan. As "yuppies" mature they will gravitate to the burbs.

Only the ones that care about square footage, or value it much more than neighborhood amenities. And if that wasn’t true then I wouldn’t see so many damn kids in the city.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Dac150

You still get more square-footage / property for your buck in New Canaan. As "yuppies" mature they will gravitate to the burbs.

But that's the point. "Yuppies" aren't heading to New Canaan in the same numbers as before.

Price is a function of desirability. New Canaan is now cheaper than Brooklyn (psf). The "market" has determined that Brooklyn gives you more.

[pdxtex]

portland's beverly hills is definitely lake oswego. scenic and cloistered downtown, check. exclusive country clubs, check. high household income, check (104k).

[dc_denizen]

is lake oswego wealthier than the west hills?

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by Crawford

But that's the point. "Yuppies" aren't heading to New Canaan in the same numbers as before.

Price is a function of desirability. New Canaan is now cheaper than Brooklyn (psf). The "market" has determined that Brooklyn gives you more.

nobody who has older children wants to live in a 1200 sq foot brooklyn apartment.

and New Canaan is a bit too far. plenty of places closer to the city with express connections (greenwich, darien, stamford, larchmont etc)

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

nobody who has older children wants to live in a 1200 sq foot brooklyn apartment.

I live in an apartment of about that size, and have a kid. And I know plenty of people living in apartments of that size. Doesn't seem to be an issue.

These aren't families without options. They're all $1 million+ apartments. All these families could move to a big house in a nice suburb tomorrow, but they don't.

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

and New Canaan is a bit too far. plenty of places closer to the city with express connections (greenwich, darien, stamford, larchmont etc)

And you'll pay more in closer-in locales. Larchmont is much more expensive than New Canaan, apples to apples.

[dc_denizen]

I understand you have a young kid? You might feel differently with 2 teenagers in the house.

Yes, if you bought a brownstone 10 years ago for 600,000 which is now worth 2 million you might not leave. Otherwise, staying the city is as hard if not harder than it was when prices were cheaper.

There is a reason there are not many (white) teens in the city. And if you live in Larchmont or Greenwich you can be in Midtown in 40 minutes.

Both Larchmont and New Canaan are a lot cheaper than Brooklyn (300-500/sq foot instead of 800-1000$/square foot).

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

I understand you have a young kid? You might feel differently with 2 teenagers in the house.

You're probably right, which is why we're only having one kid.

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

There is a reason there are not many (white) teens in the city.

The number of white children in Manhattan has grown by 40% in recent years per Census. I suspect that the number in Brownstone Brooklyn has increased by a larger share.

And the % of whites in NYC public schools has been growing every year for the past 15 years or so. Our zoned elementary has gone from basically no whites to 70% white in the last decade.

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Both Larchmont and New Canaan are a lot cheaper than Brooklyn (300-500/sq foot instead of 800-1000$/square foot).

I agree, and it's my central point. They're cheaper, indicating now less desirable. Twenty years ago, they were much more expensive (and obviously more desirable).

That's, in part, why suburbs are closing elementaries while Brownstone Brooklyn elementaries are bursting at the seams. Living preferences have changed.

[pdxtex]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

is lake oswego wealthier than the west hills?

i dunno, both are pretty wealthy. dunthorpe is probably the most wealthy neighborhood in this entire state. apparently its school district (riverdale) is the third most wealthy in the whole country. who knew??

[Double L]

I often hear people call Uptown Houston the “Beverly Hills” of Houston. It has the best shopping in the city and is filled with luxury high-rises. However, statistically, it is the Museum District, which is the most expensive part of the city to live in.

[xzmattzx]

In the Wilmington metro area, it's Westover Hills and Greenville, both outside of the city on DE Route 52 heading north out of Wilmington. DE Route 52, or Kennett Pike locally, is all mansions, mainly owned by the DuPont family in the past. Along with the DuPont family comes the high society. The engagement party for Grace Kelly and the Prince of Monaco was held in one mansion, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jr., had his wedding reception in another mansion (while FDR was President).

This area isn't completely like Beverly Hills, but it's the closest we have to a celebrity & ubermansion area.

[Dac150]

Originally Posted by Crawford

But that's the point. "Yuppies" aren't heading to New Canaan in the same numbers as before.

Probably b/c they are putting off getting married and starting families. Major life events that would traditionally occur in ones 20s - w/ respect to young professionals in metropolitan areas - are now occurring in ones 30s or 40s … if at all. Times have certainly changed.

[lhueaglesphan]

In the Philadelphia area is is The Main Line/Rittenhouse Square/Chestnut hill. OOOOOLD Money.

[lhueaglesphan]

Originally Posted by Londonee

In Philly it's Rittenhouse Square. Mix of mansions, brownstone condos, and high-rises. Walnut Street shopping.

I would say From Rittenhouse to Devon to King of Prussia (for stores types) up to Chestnut Hill.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I think the point was more nuanced. Bev Hills isn't the richest LA neighborhood. It is, however, a high-profile celebrity haven/dominant upscale retail center.

Most of these comparisons are just "richest local area", which may or may not be the best equivalent.

Well then Scottsdale/paradise valley AZ still works because its where are few celebrities live, and where they come to vacation or hide like Mr. Weinstein most recently.