Almost half a million US households lack indoor plumbing

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Right, bc tech. Tech comprises a huge share of global UHNWI.

But the Bay Area isn't really a place where wealthy or famous people tend to have homes. That doesn't mean that there aren't many non-tech Bay Area UHNWI households, but it isn't somewhere like Beverly Hills, Santa Barbara, Palm Beach, Monaco, etc., where the Oprahs and Richard Bransons of the world tend to keep homes.

I'm sure this is exaggerated in the South Bay, though. Places like SF and Marin probably have a fair share of non-tech UHNWI. Places like Atherton, Woodside and Los Altos Hills, not so much. You live there due to proximity to SV. You don't get celebrities or the global superrich.

Eh, Atherton is old money (and I wouldn't call it South Bay either, since it's in San Mateo County--so is Woodside but that at least borders Santa Clara County.).

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Eh, Atherton is old money (and I wouldn't call it South Bay either, since it's in San Mateo County--so is Woodside but that at least borders Santa Clara County.).

Yeah, and Hillsborough is also old money. Patty Hearst grew up there. And Hillsborough even has a gilded age mansion: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ds_Chateau.jpg

But I'm wondering if the old money demographics of Atherton/Hillsborough have been changing; down where I live, Pasadena and San Marino for a long time were considered bastions of old money, but that has changed over the last 20 years. It seems that the WASPy old money has been moving out, and wealthy Chinese immigrants, parachute kids, and even Hollywood celebs have been moving in (some years ago, Ryan Gosling almost bought a house in San Marino but was outbid by someone else: https://www.dirt.com/entertainers/ac...-marino-12403/). Meryl Streep and Kristen Wiig have houses in Pasadena.

San Marino's businesses all used to be closed on Sundays, I assume because of WASPy attitudes about Sundays, but I'm seeing more and more businesses in San Marino being open on Sundays, I assume because of the Chinese people that now live in San Marino; they were probably all like "businesses closed on Sundays?? What the hell?? WHY??"

So I'm wondering if a lot of the residents of Atherton/Hillsborough are now people in the tech industry.

[badrunner]

Yeah it's a lot of old money and homegrown tech wealth while LA is more of a playground for the global rich (Saudi royals, billionaire playboys etc).

[JManc]

I see Crawford's point. Other than some spots in and around SF proper, the Bay Area is not a flashy area like LA. Some rich asshole from Dubai is not going to fly his Aventador
to San Jose for a weekend of debauchery. Perhaps some areas in SF but a larger % of the LA area fits that vibe. Much like South Florida.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Yeah it's a lot of old money and homegrown tech wealth while LA is more of a playground for the global rich (Saudi royals, billionaire playboys etc).

Yeah, agreed, but there are actually quite a few "global" rich in the Bay Area as the data suggests, the 3 most expensive homes to ever sell here were all $100M+ and all 3 were to billionaires from Russia or China, who dont live here full time.

Otherwise, many own homes in the Wine Country as well as in SF proper itself, which is by far the #1 location of resident billionaires of any city in the US outside the island of Manhattan.

The Peninsula is old money and tech money, but as noted the infusion of super rich foreign buyers is definitely felt at the top end of the real estate market.

And while it's true that LA is definitely more of a "playground" for the jet set and trashy oligarchs(not hating btw, I dress like that), SF is far more the destination for foodies & wine connoisseurs, a completely different crowd, but both 'global rich'.

[3rd&Brown]

anyway back to the potty poor.

there are still tenements in the east village in nyc with shared hallway bathrooms. i once dated someone who had an (otherwise) really nice east village apartment and noticed the first time there that there was a shower tucked in the back corner of the apartment. when i asked where the toilet was, i got a finger pointed to the direction of the front door (i.e. outside in the hall).

in other urban places in the US I guarantee you there is bathroom poverty related to inability to afford repairs. for sure in philadelphia and detroit and baltimore etc there have to be low income homeowners who are one repair away from not having plumbing. if a supply or waste line from the street breaks and you have no money in the bank, you're basically on your own. there are probably tons of programs to make sure people can get money to make those repairs, but it still requires a lot of time and effort to see it through. some probably don't have the know how or patience to navigate it.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by JManc

I see Crawford's point. Other than some spots in and around SF proper, the Bay Area is not a flashy area like LA. Some rich asshole from Dubai is not going to fly his Aventador to San Jose for a weekend of debauchery. Perhaps some areas in SF but a larger % of the LA area fits that vibe. Much like South Florida.

But flashy v. not-flashy signifies a cultural distinction, not an economic one.

I grew up for the most part in the Bay Area and went to private schools--there has always been a lot of rich people there, both from old money and new. But you're right, it's not the place where Saudi playboys fly in for a weekend of gross excess--and again, that's cultural. I once worked for a firm that represented a lot of famous Bay Area musicians, and every single one of them dressed quite modestly whenever I saw them in the office. Even the one worth $350M today always dressed like someone I could expect to see in a Lower Haight coffeehouse on a Saturday morning. That didn't make him any less rich, but it did mark him as part of a more modest culture among the wealthy vis-a-vis the wealthy in cities like Miami and, to a lesser extent, LA.

[craigs]

Also, "trashy oligarchs" would be a great band name.

[ocman]

Originally Posted by Don't Be That Guy

Honest question, why anyone who isn't rich would choose to live in San Fransisco/Bay Area? The weather is great, but it sucks there if you aren't affluent, and even then it has some of the most expensive and beatdown housing options of any city unless you are very wealthy.

That region manages to get almost everything wrong when it comes to housing and poverty.

Because the media overstates the struggles of making a living. For the most part, everyone is house-poor and will never own a home until they move out. But for renters, even with double the premium for the bay, a lot of people are still coming out ahead than if they were elsewhere. The salaries are THAT much higher than anywhere else. Not to mention stock incentives/perks that companies here seem to easily give away.

[ocman]

I think the leisure appeal for buying second homes among the rich is an overstatement. At the 5M range, I'm betting most of the buyers are Chinese. And I doubt they're buying homes in these areas because they enjoy wine tasting (Napa is too far away anyway) or so they can load up on couture weekends in Beverly Hills. California/NYC real estate is invincible and probably the most secure way to park your money when you don't trust your country's feds. The American dollar is the gist of it like always. These are real estate decisions.

I mean, no one actually lives in Belgravia, London.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...t-london-homes

[JManc]

Originally Posted by craigs

But flashy v. not-flashy signifies a cultural distinction, not an economic one.

I grew up for the most part in the Bay Area and went to private schools--there has always been a lot of rich people there, both from old money and new. But you're right, it's not the place where Saudi playboys fly in for a weekend of gross excess--and again, that's cultural. I once worked for a firm that represented a lot of famous Bay Area musicians, and every single one of them dressed quite modestly whenever I saw them in the office. Even the one worth $350M today always dressed like someone I could expect to see in a Lower Haight coffeehouse on a Saturday morning. That didn't make him any less rich, but it did mark him as part of a more modest culture among the wealthy vis-a-vis the wealthy in cities like Miami and, to a lesser extent, LA.

The truly wealthy have no need to advertise it. My wife's boss's boss (owner of company) is worth billions and most people never heard of him. Even in Houston. That's how they want it.

It's the new money and millionaires much further down the flag pole who flaunt it.

[Shawn]

My visits to the Bay and discussion with my brother before he bailed left me with the impression that wealth isn't something to be flaunted there. At least, not by anyone with a head on their shoulders. It's gauche. Quite similar to the New England attitude on money: ostentatious displays of wealth "show poor upbringing," as all my grandparents used to say in one way or another. "The insecure and fleetingly moneyed flaunt it; the truly rich and powerful are invisible."

I don't think any of my grandparents ever made it down to Newport.

[Chisouthside]

Yeah spending time in LA going to areas like Beverly Hills or Malibu the area felt rich, but in the Bay you can drive from East Palo Alto to Atherton in minutes and to me at least I didnt perceive such a seismic shift in wealth though we know its there. Even going to a commercial strip in los gatos doesnt feel too different from one in sunnyvale, santa clara etc etc.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Shawn

My visits to the Bay and discussion with my brother before he bailed left me with the impression that wealth isn't something to be flaunted there. At least, not by anyone with a head on their shoulders. It's gauche. Quite similar to the New England attitude on money: ostentatious displays of wealth "show poor upbringing," as all my grandparents used to say in one way or another. "The insecure and fleetingly moneyed flaunt it; the truly rich and powerful are invisible."

I don't think any of my grandparents ever made it down to Newport.

Even there (e.g. the Breakers) the wealth is out in the open but tastefully done...not the trashy Kardashian aesthetic.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Chisouthside

Yeah spending time in LA going to areas like Beverly Hills or Malibu the area felt rich, but in the Bay you can drive from East Palo Alto to Atherton in minutes and to me at least I didnt perceive such a seismic shift in wealth though we know its there. Even going to a commercial strip in los gatos doesnt feel too different from one in sunnyvale, santa clara etc etc.

Really?

I guess I haven't been near East Palo Alto in about 20 years but it was always known for its gang graffiti and you can hear gunshots at night. Has East Palo Alto changed that much?

[jd3189]

The only time I've been to Silicon Valley ( San Jose essentially), it pretty much reminded me of the IE. The wealth isn't displayed for all to see. It looked like working/middle class Middle America. You could possibly find a similar analogue in Texas or Florida and assume that you could afford to live there if you were just average.

[Buckeye Native 001]

There's absolutely no way to quantify this, but when I visited Silicon Valley for a job offer, it almost was like you could feel the amount of money flowing through the area. Like Orange County on Steroids?