Old money and nouveau riche districts

[10023]

^ This is the kind of answer I expected from this thread. If Edmonton has 14 districts that are considered "nouveau riche", then people must have different definitions of "riche".

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by 10023

I'm not sure this is true. The Gold Coast certainly has its share of old money (like one of the Wrigleys who lives at 65 E. Goethe), but there's probably more in the North Shore suburbs. It's certainly not in the houses you show above, most of which are only worth $2-3 million.

No shit the North Shore suburbs is where all the uber-rich affluence is. The Village of Kenilworth, Illinois is one of the most affluent places in the nation. But that's not Chicago. The old money neighborhoods in Chicago are the Gold Coast and Kenwood/(parts of) Hyde Park. That's where, historically, the affluence has always been.

Also, "only worth $2-3 million"? Okay, Warren Buffett.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by Crawford

And I don't think the South Loop would really be "new money". It's just condo towers for (usually younger, middle class) folks of all types living in and around downtown. If anything it's one of the cheapest places in the core.

The new money area in Chicago proper would probably be those mansion blocks in Lincoln Park (Burling, Orchard, Dayton Streets). For the burbs, probably somewhere like Barrington or Lake Forest.

Yeah, I'm not exactly an expert on where all the 'money' is these days. The South Loop certainly does have some expensive condos though... and yeah, I've read about some of those insanely costly mansions down in LP. I guess you could say the 'new money' in Chicago is dispersed throughout the city between LP and 18th, along the lake front.

And on what planet is a tiny, two bedroom condo for $300k+ 'not any kind of money, old or new'??? Wtf world do you live in?

[10023]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Yeah, I'm not exactly an expert on where all the 'money' is these days. The South Loop certainly does have some expensive condos though... and yeah, I've read about some of those insanely costly mansions down in LP. I guess you could say the 'new money' in Chicago is dispersed throughout the city between LP and 18th, along the lake front.

And on what planet is a tiny, two bedroom condo for $300k+ 'not any kind of money, old or new'??? Wtf world do you live in?

This one.

1,000 square feet is not a tiny two bedroom. A two bedroom apartment in central London is often under 700 square feet.

$300k may be higher than the median home price in the US, but it is NOT the home of a wealthy person, self-made or inherited.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by 10023

^ This is the kind of answer I expected from this thread. If Edmonton has 14 districts that are considered "nouveau riche", then people must have different definitions of "riche".

sensesofcinema.com

[10023]

When I think of "old money", at least in an American context, I think of families like the Pritzkers and Wrigleys, or at least second generation inheritances in the $10+ million range. When I think of "nouveaux riche", I think of hedge fund managers and professional athletes.

Neither group is in the market for a $300k condo.

[niwell]

I wish you could get a 2 bedroom condo for $300k here... I mean, it's possible you can in some of the suburban towers (or older ones in bad areas), but certainly not downtown.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by 10023

When I think of "old money", at least in an American context, I think of families like the Pritzkers and Wrigleys, or at least second generation inheritances in the $10+ million range. When I think of "nouveaux riche", I think of hedge fund managers and professional athletes.

Neither group is in the market for a $300k condo.

I agree. I think to be in the "new money" category you have to have an *income* in excess of $1 million per year, and really in excess of $10 million would put you there more firmly.

"Old money" would require a family where each primary member (like the parents in each nuclear part of the greater family) had investable wealth starting at about $10 million, and really in excess of $50 million to be firmly in the category.

To Tom_Servo: A $300,000 home is not something a majority of people buy in America, but it is something a large chunk of Americans do buy, and something a very large percentage of American *could* buy if they made doing so a priority. Anything that can be done by a large chunk of Americans can not be something that defines a category like "new money" or "old money."

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by 10023

When I think of "old money", at least in an American context, I think of families like the Pritzkers and Wrigleys, or at least second generation inheritances in the $10+ million range. When I think of "nouveaux riche", I think of hedge fund managers and professional athletes.

Neither group is in the market for a $300k condo.

The top five condos on the market in One Museum Park
$1,995,000 3 br, 3 ba
$1,650,000 3 br, 3 ba
$1,300,000 3 br, 3 ba
$1,300,000 3 br, 3 ba
$1,280,000 3 br, 3½ ba

If that's not affluence in your book, then I quit.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by 10023

Neither group is in the market for a $300k condo.

Also, I never said I considered a $300k in the category of 'nouveaux rich'. I said Chicago's 'nouveaux rich' was dispersed from 18th street all the way up to Lincoln Park. On the market today:

$13,900,000 (not a condo)
924 North Clark Street
6 br, 7½ ba

$11,214,900
118 East Erie Street #ph2
4 br, 3½ ba

$7,500,000
25 East Superior Street #5001
3 br, 3½ ba

$6,400,000
132 East Delaware Place #6302
3 br, 5 ba

$5,250,000
50 East Chestnut Street #601
6 br, 7½ ba

$4,900,000
77 East Walton Place #27c
3 br, 3½ ba

etc...

Again, if that's not 'nouveaux rich' territory, then I don't know what is.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Vancouver

Old money: West side of the city proper, the District Municipality of West Vancouver (which is an incorporated suburb, on a mountain. Basically our Beverly Hills)

New money: West Vancouver, downtown (there are condos selling for upwards of 5 million dollars that aren't even penthouses)

West Van = Oakville + Beverly Hills

Vancouver is such a young city that it's pretty hard to describe any district anymore as "old money." Shaughnessy is the closest thing to an old money district, but there's a lot of new money there too.

One difference between Vancouver and Toronto is that the "old money" neighborhoods in Toronto don't have that many Asians, they're in York Mills or 905. While in Vancouver even the traditional old money district of Shaughnessy is quite Chinese.

There isn't a large Jewish population in Vancouver, but I believe Shaughnessy is quite Jewish as well, much more so than West Van which is more WASP.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

The top five condos on the market in One Museum Park
$1,995,000 3 br, 3 ba
$1,650,000 3 br, 3 ba
$1,300,000 3 br, 3 ba
$1,300,000 3 br, 3 ba
$1,280,000 3 br, 3½ ba

If that's not affluence in your book, then I quit.

It's actually not really "affluence". The examples in your next post (at $5 million and up) are more like it.

Anyway, in Chicago, as with most cities, the rich and the middle class mix within neighborhoods based on the building or even the apartment within it. There is old money in the Gold Coast, new money, and middle class families who own $2m rowhouses.

Suburban enclaves are more easy to categorize because they tend to be more homogeneous, especially when a certain area consists of nothing but large family homes as opposed to a mix of big condos, small condos, rowhouses, and rental apartments.

[austlar1]

Fort Worth old money hails from O&G fortunes put together in the first half of the 20th Century or even older ranching (usually with O&G also) fortunes. There are also a smattering of old money families with banking/insurance, mercantile, manufacturing, and construction backgrounds. These families usually reside in either Westover Hills or the Rivercrest Country Club neighborhoods. A few might reside in the Park Hill/Colonial Country Club area. New money follows old money in Fort Worth, which is socially a pretty fluid place where one enters "society" by donating time and MONEY to local arts organizations or certain hospitals. New money lives side by side with old money especially in Westover Hills and to a lesser extent in Rivercrest. New money also lives in the Overton West neighborhoods and a few other new very high end neighborhoods located in the far southwest parts of the city. The wealthiest neighborhood in the entire DFW area is a planned community known as Westlake which is just northeast of Fort Worth. It is composed mostly of new money high earners with a smattering of older money with inherited wealth. Dallas has its own set of old money/new money neighborhoods. I'll leave it to a Dallas forum member to sort through that list.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by 10023

Suburban enclaves are more easy to categorize because they tend to be more homogeneous, especially when a certain area consists of nothing but large family homes as opposed to a mix of big condos, small condos, rowhouses, and rental apartments.

Won't agrue that as you're right on. But I was simply trying to contribute what I see as Chicago's two respective areas of wealth.

That being said, I think where you and I differ the most is our conception of wealth. That is, a million dollar condo is, in my opinion, not 'middle class' in the least. I mean, the median household income in the US isn't even $60,000. It's, in my opinion, insane to consider any home (be it condo, house, etc) over $500,000 middle class accessible. Thusly, I consider all the high six figure and seven figure (and even eight) homes throughout Chicago's central lake front neighborhoods included in this upper echelon of society that we're discussing...

[SD_Phil]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Won't agrue that as you're right on. But I was simply trying to contribute what I see as Chicago's two respective areas of wealth.

That being said, I think where you and I differ the most is our conception of wealth. That is, a million dollar condo is, in my opinion, not 'middle class' in the least. I mean, the median household income in the US isn't even $60,000. It's, in my opinion, insane to consider any home (be it condo, house, etc) over $500,000 middle class accessible. Thusly, I consider all the high six figure and seven figure (and even eight) homes throughout Chicago's central lake front neighborhoods included in this upper echelon of society that we're discussing...

A lot of this will depend on cost-of-living which varies dramatically by state. $500k will get you a lot in Chicago (even more in Milwaukee) but will get you something more modest in Los Angeles and even more modest in San Francisco or New York. Salaries are higher, of course, but they rarely keep pace with cost-of-living. Median incomes don't take this kind of stuff into account since they must, by definition, give us the median for all citizens regardless of their local cost-of-living.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Won't agrue that as you're right on. But I was simply trying to contribute what I see as Chicago's two respective areas of wealth.

That being said, I think where you and I differ the most is our conception of wealth. That is, a million dollar condo is, in my opinion, not 'middle class' in the least. I mean, the median household income in the US isn't even $60,000. It's, in my opinion, insane to consider any home (be it condo, house, etc) over $500,000 middle class accessible. Thusly, I consider all the high six figure and seven figure (and even eight) homes throughout Chicago's central lake front neighborhoods included in this upper echelon of society that we're discussing...

Not to distract from the topic of this thread or re-hash an old argument, but "middle class" is not a concept that's related to median income. It doesn't mean middle income.

The term "middle class" originated to mean people who were successful enough to be quite comfortable but were not part of the gentry or aristocracy. In some ways that was the original old money vs. new money distinction - you might be a very wealthy trader, richer than most aristocracy, but you don't have a title.

The US obviously doesn't have a titled aristocracy, but I still take a less simplistic view of what it means to be working class, middle class, or wealthy. To me, the "average Joe" (or average person in any country) is working class. People with disposable income who still need to worry about things like bills and college tuition are middle class. The wealthy are people who could stop working if they wanted to and live off of their capital.

So rather than the bottom 1/3 being working class, the middle 1/3 being middle class and the top 1/3 being affluent (which I think is absurd... there's simply not 100 million affluent Americans), it's more like the bottom 60% are working class, the next 30% are middle class and the top 10% are affluent. It's not about being in the middle of a normal distribution (which incomes are not), it's about lifestyle factors.

[10023]

There is actually a regulatory definition of "affluent", by the way:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-net-worth_individual

The SEC actually defines "affluent" investors as those with between $100,000 and $1 million in liquid assets (over $1 million is "high net worth", which covers about 1.3% of Americans). I think you'll find few people with $100k worth of liquid investments (let alone up to $1 million) whose houses are worth less than $500k. For most people, their home constitutes the vast majority of their net worth, and they don't even own all of the equity.

So yes, I would say that a $500k house is squarely in the middle class. So is a $1 million home if you're talking about a two income household, consisting of a middle-aged couple who have some savings or have traded up houses a few times.

[Docere]

Forgot to mention Yorkville in the OP. That's Toronto's wealthiest high-rise neighborhood and its elite shopping district. It used to be a low-rise Victorian area and center of the 60s counterculture, but it dramatically changed in the 70s and 80s.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

That being said, I think where you and I differ the most is our conception of wealth. That is, a million dollar condo is, in my opinion, not 'middle class' in the least. I mean, the median household income in the US isn't even $60,000. It's, in my opinion, insane to consider any home (be it condo, house, etc) over $500,000 middle class accessible. Thusly, I consider all the high six figure and seven figure (and even eight) homes throughout Chicago's central lake front neighborhoods included in this upper echelon of society that we're discussing...

Per Zillow, the median sales price of a home in Chicago's South Loop is around 300k. That sounds pretty middle class to me, and is arguably very affordable, especially because we're considering mostly newer construction highrise condos right downtown.

I think it's reasonable to say that the Gold Coast and East Lincoln Park are probably the in-town old money and new money centers. Those are the two neighborhoods where multimillion closing prices aren't uncommon. In the South Loop, such a sale would be pretty rare, and it would have to be some huge penthouse unit or something.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by 10023

The SEC actually defines "affluent" investors as those with between $100,000 and $1 million in liquid assets (over $1 million is "high net worth", which covers about 1.3% of Americans). I think you'll find few people with $100k worth of liquid investments (let alone up to $1 million) whose houses are worth less than $500k. For most people, their home constitutes the vast majority of their net worth, and they don't even own all of the equity.

Totally anecdotal, and I'm probably hanging out with the wrong people, but I actually know lots of people with seven-figure liquid assets who don't even own a residence. And they're young; I'm not talking people who've invested for 50 years. But they're almost all in NYC, so probably not common overall.