What old money neighborhoods stayed intact?

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by benp

I don't know about "way, way before"...

I don't really consider River Oaks or West U to be particularly "old" places (the Heights beats them by 30 years), but in Houston terms I guess River Oaks can be considered sort of old. It started being built in the mid 1920s, but was not even fully filled out until the 1950s. Even considering how "intact" it is, fewer and fewer of the original mansions remain, as especially in the last decade they have been torn down and replaced by supersized new money estates.

West U, however, is definitely not an old money city. It was a middle-class suburb of mainly bungalows (but with some larger 2 story homes and ranch houses) that wasn't even incorporated until 1924, then grew rapidly between the 1930s and 1950s, went downhill in the 1970s, and didn't really begin transitioning to a more wealthy enclave until the 1980s. I moved to Houston in the early 80s, and worked near the Med Center. I was there during its transition when nearly every original home was replaced (almost purchased a very small very overpriced old bungalow in West U that wasn't yet a tear-down) and I would still bike frequently in the area as recently as 4 years ago. Nope, not an old money city, but currently a very nice city of expensive properties and well-to do residents.

What is the area near Main and Holcombe called? I'm talking about the area of large older homes adjacent to Rice but mostly behind or below the Texas A&M Medical School complex where the Shamrock Hotel once stood. Greenbriar Av. and Morningside Drive both roughly bisect the area. My very wealthy Houston relatives (Jewish) lived in large pre-war houses in that area until they aged out and decamped to high rise condo living. Is it considered to be Old Braeswood? I believe it was a pretty ritzy area prior to WW2. Perhaps it attracted Jewish residents that were not welcome in River Oaks or other neighborhoods at the time.

https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7023...1e3?authuser=0

[KEVINphx]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

Alvarado in Phoenix?

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4720...7i16384!8i8192

I was thinking of this one, and the Phoenix Country Club as well

[Docere]

In Toronto, the last elite neighborhood to go into decline was the Annex.
It was developed in the 1880s and was completely built up by 1910. It was targeted to the wealthy and it housed some of Toronto's most elite families, but it wasn't as homogeneously wealthy as the "garden suburbs" that developed a little later. By the 1920s there was "rich flight" and in the depression the area was filled with rooming houses. After WWII, the old mansions on St. George St. were torn down and replaced with apartment buildings (though one still stands, which is the very elite York Club at the corner of St. George and Bloor).

In the 1960s and 1970s it became desirable again as university faculty, writers and other professionals moved into the area. Its central location, proximity to the University of Toronto and grand housing stock make the area very desirable. Today it's quite wealthy, but has a more mixed population (lots of students and renters).

Every rich neighborhood and so on on that developed in the early 20th century - Rosedale, Forest Hill, Lawrence Park- has remained wealthy. While there's definitely been an inversion of the core/periphery pattern (i.e. the core has shifted from mostly lower income to heavily high income), the list of richest Toronto neighborhoods in 1960 is pretty much identical to that of today, with gentrification adding a few others (Yorkville, parts of the Annex) to the list.

[craigs]

I just read an article about Los Angeles' official, city-owned mayor's mansion, Getty House, in Windsor Square (adjacent to Hancock Park), which was discussed earlier in this thread. It was donated to the city by the Getty Oil heirs. I'd say this is more proof that the Hancock Park-Windsor Square area fits the bill for this thread, as it is as "old money" as any LA area gets, and has retained its value and prestige.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by benp

I don't know about "way, way before"...

I don't really consider River Oaks or West U to be particularly "old" places (the Heights beats them by 30 years), but in Houston terms I guess River Oaks can be considered sort of old. It started being built in the mid 1920s, but was not even fully filled out until the 1950s. Even considering how "intact" it is, fewer and fewer of the original mansions remain, as especially in the last decade they have been torn down and replaced by supersized new money estates.

West U, however, is definitely not an old money city. It was a middle-class suburb of mainly bungalows (but with some larger 2 story homes and ranch houses) that wasn't even incorporated until 1924, then grew rapidly between the 1930s and 1950s, went downhill in the 1970s, and didn't really begin transitioning to a more wealthy enclave until the 1980s. I moved to Houston in the early 80s, and worked near the Med Center. I was there during its transition when nearly every original home was replaced (almost purchased a very small very overpriced old bungalow in West U that wasn't yet a tear-down) and I would still bike frequently in the area as recently as 4 years ago. Nope, not an old money city, but currently a very nice city of expensive properties and well-to do residents.

Houston isn't that old. Houston had under 150k a hundred years ago. Buffalo had 5x that. My wife is a lifelong Houstonian and her perception of how old a house or neighborhood is different from mine. Our house (1979) is old to her but newish to be as I grew up in Upstate NY where most houses are pre-war.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by JManc

Houston isn't that old. Houston had under 150k a hundred years ago. Buffalo had 5x that. My wife is a lifelong Houstonian and her perception of how old a house or neighborhood is different from mine. Our house (1979) is old to her but newish to be as I grew up in Upstate NY where most houses are pre-war.

Apparently 63% of homes in the city of Buffalo were built pre-1940. Years ago a list stated only Boston was older for cities over 250k in population.
I wonder what the figure is for pre-1900.
https://www.punctualabstract.com/201...housing-stock/

Forumer, benp, takes a really comprehensive look/tour of the city and a lot of its gems. So many unique homes with varied architectural styles and colors.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bpawlik/albums

[jmecklenborg]

Cincinnati is the only MSA namesake to appear on this list:


https://www.coventrydirect.com/blog/...-cities-in-us/

Cincinnati has at-large council elections (no wards) and still had a lot of Republicans on city council until very recently. For the last few years only one Republican has won a seat.

[jpdivola]

Richmond, VA, despite a relatively high crime rate, has a number of intact, affluent residential areas in the city.

I suspect this is driven by a couple factors:
1) a long standing racial/class aristocracy This is admittedly speculative. But I suspect the old guard was more effectively able to maintain their dominance over the affluent areas areae in a way that more dynamic industrial cities with their swelling populations of poor immigrants and great migration black populations couldn't.
2) brick architecture. These hold up a lot better than wooden houses which quickly fall apart if not taken care off.
3) a stable govt/banking economy. It's economy didn't collapse the way the rust belt did.
4) no heavy industrial heritage -
It can be easy to forget how polluted, ugly and smelly the industrial cities were back in the day. Most of the rust belt cities just weren't very pleasant places to live in 1950. My grandparents immigrant neighborhood was a giant cancer cluster with the factories and polluted groundwater. My grandma regularly talks about she couldn't wait to leave for a new suburb with yards, trees, fresh air, etc.

[Buckeye Native 001]

I reckon the amount of Catholic schools is why Cincinnati has so many private school attendees?

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

I reckon the amount of Catholic schools is why Cincinnati has so many private school attendees?

I question the methodology of this list. Does the kid need to live in the city AND attend a private school in the city? Or can they live in the city and attend a private school outside the city?

What's ridiculous is how the private schools seem to go out of their way to look and sound as English as possible, but then Summit, despite being Catholic, also tries to act English-ish with its "country day" moniker.

[lzppjb]

First to come to my mind were Highland Park/University Park in Dallas.

[TempleGuy1000]

I bet a common factor to many of the more suburban old money neighborhoods is that they were built around the big parks and/or near the older country clubs.

[Docere]

It would be interesting to know whether 100 years ago a majority of the wealthy (say those listed in the Social Register) lived in city limits. In Chicago, would a majority already be living in North Shore suburbs or would they still be mostly in the Gold Coast area? In New York, would more be living on the Upper East Side or in suburban locations such as LI's North Shore or Westchester?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Docere

It would be interesting to know whether 100 years ago a majority of the wealthy (say those listed in the Social Register) lived in city limits. In Chicago, would a majority already be living in North Shore suburbs or would they still be mostly in the Gold Coast area? In New York, would more be living on the Upper East Side or in suburban locations such as LI's North Shore or Westchester?

The super wealthy would've had homes in the city and a country estate.

[Crawford]

Pre-1960, I'm pretty sure a majority of NYC and Chicago's elite still lived in the city proper.

Even today, I'd think the numbers would be pretty high. Wild guess, around 40-50% for NYC and 30% or so for Chicago? Obviously it depends on definition of elite. Some professions and backgrounds would be more city-centric than others.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Docere

It would be interesting to know whether 100 years ago a majority of the wealthy (say those listed in the Social Register) lived in city limits. In Chicago, would a majority already be living in North Shore suburbs or would they still be mostly in the Gold Coast area?

The infection point was almost certainly sometime in the first half of the 20th century.

In 1900 most would've been in the city, by 1950 most would've been in the burbs.

In 1923? Maybe equalish, or maybe the burbs already ahead.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

The infection point was almost certainly sometime in the first half of the 20th century.

In 1900 most would've been in the city, by 1950 most would've been in the burbs.

In 1923? Maybe equalish, or maybe the burbs already ahead.

In 1923, the Gold Coast was basically country, and there weren't even major arterials. Women didn't drive. There were few suburban schools of note. Public school districts were rudimentary and private schools were rare.

I cannot imagine most of Chicago's social register set was living full-time out in the countryside.

It's a Detroit-related anecdote, but I know an older guy who moved from an elite neighborhood in Detroit to Bloomfield Hills in the 1950's. There were dirt roads and barely any gas stations. The schools were horrendous compared to Detroit Public Schools. The facilities were a joke. The Detroit schools had science labs, professional-quality auditoriums and multiple pools. There was no comparison between a Cass Tech and a suburban HS. At the time, Detroit Country Day was in Detroit. Cranbrook was a boarding school in the woods.

[Docere]

Mitt Romney spent his earliest years in Detroit, George Romney (a GM executive) lived in Palmer Woods until moving out to Bloomfield Hills in the early 1950s.

[Crawford]

Even in Detroit, a city with almost 100% wealth flight, I'd wager a very high % of social register types lived in city proper pre-1960. The Pointes were well-established pre-1960, but Oakland County was mostly countryside except for the Woodward corridor.

[Docere]

Cleveland (smaller city limits than Detroit) probably reached 100% wealth flight before any other city.

Most social elites and many of their institutions gravitated to eastern suburbs, fewer went west and very few south. By 1931 66% of CLEVELAND BLUE BOOK entries lived in BRATENAHL, Cleveland Hts., East Cleveland, and Shaker Hts.; Cleveland claimed 28% and Lakewood 6%. By 1981 84% lived in 10 eastern suburbs, 9% in Cleveland, and 7% in 3 western suburbs.

https://case.edu/ech/articles/s/suburbs