HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2022, 10:23 PM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post
It has improved, but I think not quite that much. If the per capita income improved as much as the household income, it should be ranked around the lower end of the top 20.

Also seems like Putnam, Fairfield, Nassau, Suffolk, Morris, Somerset, Monmouth and Hunterdon countries have higher per capita incomes than Westchester?
Possibly, but that's why household income numbers aren't super valuable at determining relative wealth and desirability. Westchester is generally much more expensive and prestigious than these counties.

Westchester is also nearly 40% multifamily housing, and has significant low-income housing. Putnam and Hunterdon are basically SFH in the woods. But if you compare what $1 million buys in say, Westchester, vs. Hunterdon, it'll be a silly comparison. You're comparing a dumpy bungalow to a big McMansion.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2022, 10:26 PM
lio45 lio45 is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Quebec
Posts: 42,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_denizen View Post
Core is wealthier

Boston
New York
Seattle
Portland
Washington DC
San Francisco
Los Angeles
Maybe Dallas
Maybe Austin

Suburbs wealthier

Philadelphia
Baltimore
Detroit
Chicago
Miami
Houston
Depends how it's calculated. Last I visited (a while ago, I'll admit) Los Angeles, the corest core was strictly commercial, so the only "residents" were the homeless.



Generally speaking, I guess the following city profile would be fairly typical:


Core of the core: shiny expensive tall office towers, with a tiny tiny amount of lowrise residential holdouts from another era (all the value being in the land, these are in most cases just waiting to be eventually redeveloped)

= low incomes (since the few residents of that remaining subpar housing are mostly poor)

First inner "ring": right outside the office core, usually dense prewar housing, walkable, vibrant neighborhood retail

= high incomes

Following "ring": further away from the office core, less old and less architecturally interesting, less desirable location

= lower incomes than the previous ring

Suburbs: some high-end ones, some cheap cookie-cutter ones that exist as bedroom communities for the middle class who can't afford the inner ring

= middle incomes, on average


Conclusion based on the above generic city profile: whether the "outer" is richer or poorer than the "inner" hinges on where exactly we decide to place the arbitrary lines.
__________________
Suburbia is the worst capital sin / La soberbia es considerado el original y más serio de los pecados capitales
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2022, 10:31 PM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Yeah, I think the Sunbelt isn't an easy answer. The desirable quarter in almost all the Sunbelt cities is in the city proper or nearby (Scottsdale, Highland Park, Buckhead, West LA, River Oaks) but these neighborhoods aren't really distinct from where the wealthy live in the suburbs of older, eastern cities. If the Main Line or Grosse Pointe or Bronxville were in the Sunbelt, they'd be in the city proper, given relative age.

Hartford is an extreme example of an Eastern metro, where there are basically no wealthy in city proper, but most of the wealthy live in older streetcar suburbs within biking distance of downtown. If you compare Hartford to Nashville, the geographic wealth distribution seems almost identical, even though almost all the Nashville wealth is in city proper. It's mostly just huge differences in relative age of metros and relative city proper boundaries.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Aug 14, 2022, 11:47 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,783
Suburbs of Houston are certainly not wealthier. Houston doesn't have much in the way of a residential core but vast majority of the wealth is close in; River Oaks, West University, etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2022, 12:00 AM
iheartthed iheartthed is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post
Also seems like Putnam, Fairfield, Nassau, Suffolk, Morris, Somerset, Monmouth and Hunterdon countries have higher per capita incomes than Westchester?
Do you mean higher medians? I doubt they have higher per capita incomes. Where are you seeing that? The per capita from the Wikipedia page shows Westchester in a solid second place to Manhattan. But by median income, I'm sure a few are competitive. Westchester's southern end is more urban and has some relatively lower income communities at the southern end of the county (Yonkers, Mount Vernon, White Plains, New Rochelle, etc). Nassau on the other hand, which is the only other New York county that directly abuts NYC, is pretty much all suburban, since the urban/suburban transition starts in Queens.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2022, 12:23 AM
Chef's Avatar
Chef Chef is offline
Paradise Island
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 2,444
Minneapolis has some enclaves of wealth, and significant middle class areas but large swathes of the city are poor or working class and overall it is poorer than Minnesota as a whole.

In general the Twin Cities have a strong favored quarter dynamic that begins in Minneapolis and St Paul proper and radiates out through the suburbs. Because downtown Minneapolis is the locus of the favored/unfavored quarter system of the metro the city is too heterogenous to be considered any one thing socio-economically.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2022, 1:29 AM
memph memph is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
Suburbs of Houston are certainly not wealthier. Houston doesn't have much in the way of a residential core but vast majority of the wealth is close in; River Oaks, West University, etc.
But the lowest income areas area also fairly close in.

610 loop is pretty evenly split between quite wealthy and quite poor, with relatively few middle income neighbourhoods. Between 610 and SHT the low income neighbourhoods probably outnumber the high income ones 3 to 1. The neighbourhoods a bit beyond SHT like around Hwy 6/1960 are pretty even split, and then the outermost ring is mostly upper-middle class.

So although the wealthiest neighbourhoods are in the more close in areas, in terms of the average income of the entirety of each ring, I'd say Houston is

Outer Ring > Core > Inner Ring

Whereas with Toronto, I'd say it's

Core > Outer Ring > Inner Ring
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2022, 1:32 AM
memph memph is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
Do you mean higher medians? I doubt they have higher per capita incomes. Where are you seeing that? The per capita from the Wikipedia page shows Westchester in a solid second place to Manhattan. But by median income, I'm sure a few are competitive. Westchester's southern end is more urban and has some relatively lower income communities at the southern end of the county (Yonkers, Mount Vernon, White Plains, New Rochelle, etc). Nassau on the other hand, which is the only other New York county that directly abuts NYC, is pretty much all suburban, since the urban/suburban transition starts in Queens.
I was going off this map. Looks like median household incomes?
http://www.energyjustice.net/justice...gsLayer=income
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2022, 2:23 AM
hipster duck's Avatar
hipster duck hipster duck is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Harder to do analysis for Sunbelt. LA, Atlanta, Houston, Dallas also have a high share of HNW in city proper. However, these neighborhoods are overwhelmingly suburban. Even for Canada, a lot of the HNW would be in older suburban-style neighborhoods near the core. Rosedale isn't really an urban neighborhood, even if it's cosmopolitan, urbane and core-adjacent.
I think New York is still the only city in North America where the ultra-HNWI live in areas that are dense enough to be walkable. Pacific Heights, SF, might be the other contender but it’s obviously not as urban as the UES.

In every other city, including big and old ones like Boston and Chicago or expensive ones like Toronto, people who can afford any house they want, can and will buy a home with suburban space, both indoors and outdoors, even if it’s deep in the inner city. Those options still exist in those places to cater to exactly those people. But at those low densities, despite their central location, they will never be walkable urban neighbourhoods.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2022, 2:33 AM
Shawn Shawn is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 5,935
Assuming "core" for Boston includes Cambridge, Brookline, Newton, and everything else inside 128, then Boston's core is definitely wealthier than the burbs . . . by volume.

I'm pretty sure on a purely per capita or median family income level, Metro West wins. Dover, Weston, Wellesley, Wayland, Sherborn . . . and if Newton is included in Metro West (it usually is), I'd be even more sure of it. But you're also only looking at a fraction of the core's population.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2022, 2:36 AM
Shawn Shawn is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 5,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipster duck View Post
I think New York is still the only city in North America where the ultra-HNWI live in areas that are dense enough to be walkable.
Boston's Beacon Hill, Back Bay, and North End would beg to differ.

These are the three wealthiest neighborhoods in Massachusetts. A townhouse in Louisburg Square in Beacon Hill is the most prestigious address in the state. If your last name isn't Cabot or Appleton, Heinz or Kerry, Winthrop or Dudley, Adams or Bates . . . you aren't living there. This is multi-multi generational wealth, stuff from back when Boston was the largest North American shipping port to and from China.

I know it's not Billionaire's Row-level. But it's still "I can afford a $30 million Beacon Hill townhouse along with my $10 million cottage on Nantucket, $5 million lodge on Winnipesaukee, and a pied-à-terre in Manhattan" type wealth.

Last edited by Shawn; Aug 15, 2022 at 2:49 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2022, 2:46 AM
hipster duck's Avatar
hipster duck hipster duck is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawn View Post
Boston's Beacon Hill, Back Bay, and North End would beg to differ.

These are the three wealthiest neighborhoods in Massachusetts.
Are those places where the richest of the rich live? Places like Chestnut Hill or parts of Brookline seemed richer than the North End to me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2022, 2:52 AM
memph memph is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv View Post
Increasingly, Austin.
It's true that the lowest income parts of Austin are pretty suburban. Around US-183 in North Austin, Franklin Park, East Riverside, Montopolis... But a lot of that has to do with Austin being a very new city where there's little that's urban and pretty much the whole city is suburban. Most of these I would still consider to be aging inner suburbs (if not "core") rather than new outer suburbs. While Franklin Park is pretty close to the suburban fringe, that's probably partly because the airport and multiple landfills make that part of the suburban fringe less appealing to develop, and up until recently, minimal freeway access (and other reason maybe? I'm not from Austin). Distance wise, it's only 5 miles from Downtown, whereas the sprawl stretches for about 15 miles to the South, 25 miles to the North and 20 miles into the Hill Country.

For Austin, I'd consider Hill Country, Williamson County and Cedar Valley to be outer suburbs and those are pretty affluent. The Hays County suburbs north of San Marcos are more middle income. There are some lower income exurban mobile home communities east of Austin, but I suspect the outer suburban/exurban ring would still average out to being upper-middle income.

For the core, the UT Austin students throw off the income numbers, but you could make a case they shouldn't count. With a little more gentrification, especially in East Austin and North Loop/Brentwood, Austin could get there. Especially since the wealthiest parts of the Hill Country are the most close in parts, which by Austin's suburban standards, makes them not really outer suburbs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2022, 3:08 AM
AviationGuy AviationGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cypress, TX
Posts: 5,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post
It's true that the lowest income parts of Austin are pretty suburban. Around US-183 in North Austin, Franklin Park, East Riverside, Montopolis... But a lot of that has to do with Austin being a very new city where there's little that's urban and pretty much the whole city is suburban. Most of these I would still consider to be aging inner suburbs (if not "core") rather than new outer suburbs. While Franklin Park is pretty close to the suburban fringe, that's probably partly because the airport and multiple landfills make that part of the suburban fringe less appealing to develop, and up until recently, minimal freeway access (and other reason maybe? I'm not from Austin). Distance wise, it's only 5 miles from Downtown, whereas the sprawl stretches for about 15 miles to the South, 25 miles to the North and 20 miles into the Hill Country.

For Austin, I'd consider Hill Country, Williamson County and Cedar Valley to be outer suburbs and those are pretty affluent. The Hays County suburbs north of San Marcos are more middle income. There are some lower income exurban mobile home communities east of Austin, but I suspect the outer suburban/exurban ring would still average out to being upper-middle income.

For the core, the UT Austin students throw off the income numbers, but you could make a case they shouldn't count. With a little more gentrification, especially in East Austin and North Loop/Brentwood, Austin could get there. Especially since the wealthiest parts of the Hill Country are the most close in parts, which by Austin's suburban standards, makes them not really outer suburbs.
I don't have specific data, but I generally think of Austin's core as being the wealthiest in the area by far. Or maybe it should be in terms of property values. That would include downtown, Travis Heights, Bouldin Creek, Barton Hills, Tarrytown, Pemberton, Brykerwoods, Hyde Park, Allandale, etc.. Not everyone in these areas is wealthy; they happen to own properties with very high values. Places like Tarrytown, Pemberton, and Travis Heights, though, tend to be wealthy because they've been very affluent for a long time. I don't think of other wealthy areas as core, like Northwest Hills, Cat Mountain, Jester.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2022, 3:13 AM
Shawn Shawn is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 5,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipster duck View Post
Are those places where the richest of the rich live? Places like Chestnut Hill or parts of Brookline seemed richer than the North End to me.
I'll give you that the North End wealth is largely tied to property value, but Beacon Hill and Back Bay are more prestigious than Brookline. New money can buy you a Brookline estate ala Tom Brady, but money doesn't buy a Brahmin last name.

Chestnut Hill (which straddles Brookline and Newton) is gorgeous, but a lot of those houses are actually Boston College-owned.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2022, 3:23 AM
SIGSEGV's Avatar
SIGSEGV SIGSEGV is offline
He/his/him. >~<, QED!
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Loop, Chicago
Posts: 5,991
hard to tell in Chicago if North Shore outweighs Lincoln Park / Gold Coast. Median income is no doubt higher in tiny places like Kenilworth but a street like this screams old money: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9079...7i16384!8i8192
__________________
And here the air that I breathe isn't dead.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2022, 3:31 AM
Docere Docere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 7,364
Beacon Hill is really charming. John Kerry is a resident, as was Ted Kennedy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2022, 3:35 AM
memph memph is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipster duck View Post
Are those places where the richest of the rich live? Places like Chestnut Hill or parts of Brookline seemed richer than the North End to me.
Perhaps I should have said metropolitan core. Although those areas are fairly suburban, they're still pretty close in in the grand scheme of things. Comparable to The Beaches, The Kingsway, Forest Hill or Lawrence Park in Toronto distance wise. Boston's core exerts a strong pull factor for wealthy people, it's just that there are much more spacious properties just a little further (but still quite close in) in Brookline and the like compared Beacon Hill, so they'll consider that a good trade-off.

However, Boston's biggest low income cluster is Roxbury-Dorchester, which is only 3-4 miles from the CBD. That's like Bloordale Village type of distance, and Bloordale hasn't been Toronto's main low income cluster for at least half a century.

The lowest income areas of Toronto would be at a similar distance from the CBD as Lynn, Salem, Quincy, Waltham, Woburn, Weymouth, Randolph and Norwood. Which granted aren't particularly wealthy, although some of the lower density communities surrounding these towns are quite affluent.

Boston is a bit tricky to analyze through this lens, because the settlement patterns don't really radiate out from the core. There's many old towns scattered around the metro area, the densest of which like Salem, Lowell and Lawrence are lower income, and then at similar distances, medium density suburbs like Billerica are more middle income, and low density ones like Boxford are high income.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2022, 4:20 AM
memph memph is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Perhaps it's more valuable to see where wealthy household reside, rather than looking at medians. On this measure, Philly probably doesn't perform particularly well, with the vast majority of HNW in the burbs. Detroit and Cleveland would have extremely low numbers. NYC would probably have the highest share of any major metro. Chicago, SF, Seattle, DC, Boston would also rank highly.

Harder to do analysis for Sunbelt. LA, Atlanta, Houston, Dallas also have a high share of HNW in city proper. However, these neighborhoods are overwhelmingly suburban. Even for Canada, a lot of the HNW would be in older suburban-style neighborhoods near the core. Rosedale isn't really an urban neighborhood, even if it's cosmopolitan, urbane and core-adjacent.
For Toronto, the location of high income households correlates pretty well to high average incomes.
This is the percentage of each census tract's residents that are part of households that are in the top 10% of Canada's income distribution (adjusted for household size).


Not sure I'd call Rosedale's population cosmopolitan considering it's among the WASPiest neighbourhoods in the GTA. Well traveled maybe. But when you can walk to the Financial District in less time than it takes for the average GTA resident to commute to work I'd say you're well within the core. Low density neighbourhoods will almost always be wealthier than high density ones given equal access to amenities and employment, so it shouldn't come as too much of a surprise that Rosedale is wealthier than Christie Pits or Parkdale.

Some parts of Downtown Toronto are quite wealthy, like the Fashion District, Yorkville, even King East. Neighbourhoods with rowhouses/narrow lot housing and walkability like Riverdale, Cabbagetown, Roncesvalles, The Beaches, Leslieville, Summerhill and Bloor West Village are quite wealthy too.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2022, 4:24 AM
memph memph is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Possibly, but that's why household income numbers aren't super valuable at determining relative wealth and desirability. Westchester is generally much more expensive and prestigious than these counties.

Westchester is also nearly 40% multifamily housing, and has significant low-income housing. Putnam and Hunterdon are basically SFH in the woods. But if you compare what $1 million buys in say, Westchester, vs. Hunterdon, it'll be a silly comparison. You're comparing a dumpy bungalow to a big McMansion.
Do the low income areas impact public schools that the wealthy kids would attend or are they in different school districts? Or do prefer paying more for housing and schools (ie private) in exchange for being closer to Manhattan?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:35 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.