What old money neighborhoods stayed intact?

[Quixote]

Hancock Park. The most expensive listing in there is currently a 13,800-SF home on nearly one acre built in 1929 asking $23 million.

I would love to be able to afford a home there as Downtown and adjacent Koreatown densify/gentrify.

One of the things that I think is massively appealing about LA to many people is a hybrid urban-suburban model. You can live in a single-family home with a front and backyard and still feel like you're living in a large, cosmopolitan city. You could probably say the same for other cities in North America, but LA has this dynamic down to a tee.

[Steely Dan]

high wealth tracts (>$112K median household income) within city limits are pretty damn rare in the rustbelt outside of chicago, which has dozens of them.

here's what i could find on justice maps (2020 data)

cincinnati: 3 tracts in the hyde park/ault park area (12,715 total pop.)
pittsburgh: 3 tracts in the squirrel hill area (11,420 total pop.)
milwaukee: 2 tracts in the upper east side area (6,181 total pop.)
detroit: 1 tract in palmer woods (1,972 total pop.)
st. louis: 0
cleveland: 0
buffalo: 0
rochester: 0

[JManc]

Houston: River Oaks, West University and Memorial area.

[benp]

Originally Posted by JManc

Houston: River Oaks, West University and Memorial area.

I disagree that these are "old money" neighborhoods, River Oaks and Memorial didn't really become developed until mid 20th Century, and West U was a typical suburb until the late 20th Century when all the old ranch houses and bungalows were torn down and replaced.

Not that much older, but developed earlier and dedicated to wealthy residents is Broadacres (area along North and South Boulevard) near Rice University. The nearby Museum District was also an old money neighborhood, but much of the neighborhood fell into disuse and disrepair, only coming back in some extent in the last 10-20 years or so. Montrose Blvd itself was once lined with mansions, but nearly all have been replaced.

[benp]

m

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

high wealth tracts (>$112K median household income) within city limits are pretty damn rare in the rustbelt outside of chicago, which has dozens of them.

here's what i could find on justice maps (2020 data)

cincinnati: 3 tracts in the hyde park/ault park area (12,715 total pop.)
pittsburgh: 3 tracts in the squirrel hill area (11,420 total pop.)
milwaukee: 2 tracts in the upper east side area (6,181 total pop.)
detroit: 1 tract in palmer woods (1,972 total pop.)
st. louis: 0
cleveland: 0
buffalo: 0
rochester: 0

Those zeros are not surprising but misleading, at least in Buffalo. The neighborhoods surrounding Delaware Avenue, from just north of downtown for about 3 miles up to and surrounding Delaware Park were developed by and for wealthier residents in the 19th and 20th centuries, are nearly 100% intact and maintained, and have values ranging today from the $600k to over $1M, with many recent sales nearing $2M, and even 1 recent sale at $3M. Values may not seem like a big deal in expensive places like CA, but in a city with a median home value of less than $250k it represents a significant concentration of wealth. In a city not known for catering to rich people, I was recently surprised to find out that a billionaire has a home just south of the park, on a street of more "modest" (but still some $1M+) homes. Also, most of Millionaires Row still exists, though former mansions have been converted to other uses, like apartments, schools, businesses, and non-profits.

[homebucket]

Pacific Heights, Presidio Heights, Seacliff, Nob Hill, Telegraph Hill, Russian Hill and some parts of the Marina come to mind.

[wwmiv]

Denver: Country Club

San Antonio: Alamo Heights, Olmos Park, and King William (the first two are enclaves)

Not only have these neighborhoods remained intact as wealthy enclaves, they have maintained their regional stature.

Austin: ehhhhhh….

Hyde Park is now a mixed income community with plenty of multi-unit conversions and Tarrytown has lost a lot of its stature relative to places like Rollingwood, West Lake Hills, Northwest Hills, Bee Cave, and Lakeway.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by benp

I disagree that these are "old money" neighborhoods, River Oaks and Memorial didn't really become developed until mid 20th Century, and West U was a typical suburb until the late 20th Century when all the old ranch houses and bungalows were torn down and replaced.

River Oaks has consistently been the center of Houston's old money since the 20's. It's where most of the oil wealth settled and has remained since. Memorial, yes came later, but these two areas have been centers of old money since they were established. West U is an extension of the Museum District and the Broadacres are which as you mentioned transitioned and gentrified and they are wealthy areas now but with a lot more nouveau riche. They are more akin to the Heights or Tanglewood than River Oaks. My lawn guy lives on North Blvd.

[benp]

Originally Posted by JManc

River Oaks has consistently been the center of Houston's old money since the 20's. It's where most of the oil wealth settled and has remained since. Memorial, yes came later, but these two areas have been centers of old money since they were established. West U is an extension of the Museum District and the Broadacres are which as you mentioned transitioned and gentrified and they are wealthy areas now but with a lot more nouveau riche. They are more akin to the Heights or Tanglewood than River Oaks. My lawn guy lives on North Blvd.

We may both be wrong. Looking back at the OP, it mentioned "rich flight" beginning in the 1920s, so perhaps they were looking for neighborhoods that pre-dated that time period to be "old money" and are still intact. River Oaks and Broadacres would then be the places they ran to. By that measure, maybe only a few parts of the Heights could be one of the only surviving areas, though the Heights certainly went through some really bad decades, losing many homes, before revitalization started in the 1980s. But its not wealthy today in the same way that a River Oaks is. Houston has very few places that managed to survive intact for more than 100 years.

I disagree about West U, as that city was almost 100% rebuilt starting in the 1980s, with little left of the original homes, and West U is all west of Kirby. You may be thinking about Southampton, adjacent to Rice Village, and areas closer to Rice like Courtlandt Place, Westmoreland, Audubon Place, and Avondale. But that's not really "old money" either.

And I suspect your lawn guy doesn't live on the same part of North Blvd as Broadacres, the section I am referring to, which is closest to Montrose Blvd, and a historic district. If so, congratulations to him. Jim Crane's ex sold their home on South for $18M a few years ago, for example, and current listings are for over $5M. However, on North Blvd closer to Shepherd there are apartments that are listed for under $1400, with a spectrum of variation in between.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

cincinnati: 3 tracts in the hyde park/ault park area (12,715 total pop.)

Note that Hyde Park was hit by a tornado in 1917 that destroyed many of the old mansions. That's why Hyde Park is a bit less architecturally impressive than people might expect.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Hancock Park. The most expensive listing in there is currently a 13,800-SF home on nearly one acre built in 1929 asking $23 million.

I would love to be able to afford a home there as Downtown and adjacent Koreatown densify/gentrify.

One of the things that I think is massively appealing about LA to many people is a hybrid urban-suburban model. You can live in a single-family home with a front and backyard and still feel like you're living in a large, cosmopolitan city. You could probably say the same for other cities in North America, but LA has this dynamic down to a tee.

To add to that, there's that private gated community within Hancock Park called Fremont Place, LA's very first gated community, established in 1911.

There's also an adjacent neighborhood called Windsor Square, but many people think it's part of Hancock Park. It was very exclusive, and was the first neighborhood in LA to have all of its electrical utilities underground; they didn't want any visible poles and wires. Even the flatlands of Beverly Hills have poles and wires, but they're in the alleys behind the homes.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by benp

We may both be wrong. Looking back at the OP, it mentioned "rich flight" beginning in the 1920s, so perhaps they were looking for neighborhoods that pre-dated that time period to be "old money" and are still intact. River Oaks and Broadacres would then be the places they ran to. By that measure, maybe only a few parts of the Heights could be one of the only surviving areas, though the Heights certainly went through some really bad decades, losing many homes, before revitalization started in the 1980s. But its not wealthy today in the same way that a River Oaks is. Houston has very few places that managed to survive intact for more than 100 years.

I disagree about West U, as that city was almost 100% rebuilt starting in the 1980s, with little left of the original homes, and West U is all west of Kirby. You may be thinking about Southampton, adjacent to Rice Village, and areas closer to Rice like Courtlandt Place, Westmoreland, Audubon Place, and Avondale. But that's not really "old money" either.

And I suspect your lawn guy doesn't live on the same part of North Blvd as Broadacres, the section I am referring to, which is closest to Montrose Blvd, and a historic district. If so, congratulations to him. Jim Crane's ex sold their home on South for $18M a few years ago, for example, and current listings are for over $5M. However, on North Blvd closer to Shepherd there are apartments that are listed for under $1400, with a spectrum of variation in between.

I lived in the Heights as a kid in the 80's and it was mostly elderly and immigrants and sketchy in a lot of areas. Took a complete 180 in the late 90's. We had a family friend next door who kept on getting offers to buy her house (a bungalow) for $100k as late as the early 2000's. That house is probably worth at least $500k and hasn't been updated. That whole area is mostly new money now.

My lawn guy's house is worth 2x as ours so he did something right. Likely bought in years ago when the market was right.

[Obadno]

North Central Phoenix and Arcadia, Plans were for a cross town parkway/express way that never materialized and now they are some of most desirable parts of town.

Shockingly the people that lived here managed to avoid eminent Domaine at the peak of highway construction frenzy.

North Central


Arcadia:


Wish I had a map showing the original plan from like the 1970's its out there somewhere hard to find.

There are also tiny pockets near downtown of actual old homes that didn't sell in the 1960's





https://goo.gl/maps/bdBhWqnjetWm9qgx7

[Crawford]

New Orleans is interesting in that it's a very troubled city, very large black population, highest murder rate in U.S. many years, yet the wealth centers haven't really shifted in the last century. Wealth is south/west of CBD, near St. Charles Ave. Despite all its issues, I bet it has one of the highest shares of in-town wealth in the U.S. There aren't really any wealthy suburbs.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Pittsburgh

Fox Chapel, Highland Park, Mt. Lebanon, Sewickley, Shadyside, Squirrel Hill

All founded as wealthy areas. All remain wealthy areas.

Of course Fox Chapel, Sewickley, and Mt. Lebanon are not actually in the city. Plus the actual wealth in "Sewickley" isn't in the borough proper, it's in other municipalities in the school system, like Edgeworth, Sewickley Hills, and Sewickley Heights. Sewickley proper is more modest in terms of wealth (median household income of $78,000 according to Justice Map). The Sewickley area was 100% an old money enclave though - built up as a railroad suburb by North Side wealth once they decamped from Allegheny West and Manchester.

I'd also argue Mt. Lebanon was was never an "old money" area though, it was just an upper-middle class area. Looking at real estate listings you can still get houses there for under $300,000, the average listing seems to be around $500,000, and only a handful of homes are $1 million+. It was built out in the interwar period as a suburb for doctors, lawyers, and mid-level managers.

Within the city, I think it's unquestionable that Shadyside and Squirrel Hill (North of Forbes) have been the wealthy areas, with some spillover, like parts of Point Breeze and the Schenley Farms area of Oakland. It's hard to detect the considerable wealth in Shadyside these days looking at median household income however, because the main corridors surrounding the wealthiest portion of Shadyside were converted during the mid-20th century into apartments, and ultimately became student slums. The juxtaposition of the old 19th century homes and the mid-century infill as the estates were broken up is quite weird though - showcasing the area did go "downhill" for a bit in the mid 20th century.

I'd say Highland Park isn't in the same boat though. It resisted white flight, but clearly went downhill more sharply from the 1950s through the 1980s in the areas bordering East Liberty. The area up on the hill west of N Highland maintained itself as kinda a mini-Squirrel Hill though.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

To add to that, there's that private gated community within Hancock Park called Fremont Place, LA's very first gated community, established in 1911.

There's also an adjacent neighborhood called Windsor Square, but many people think it's part of Hancock Park. It was very exclusive, and was the first neighborhood in LA to have all of its electrical utilities underground; they didn't want any visible poles and wires. Even the flatlands of Beverly Hills have poles and wires, but they're in the alleys behind the homes.

Hancock Park, while it is within city limits, is more the result of an earlier wave of wealth flight/suburbanization to what was considered the outskirts back then. I think it's interesting to imagine what the city would be like today if true in-city, old money neighborhoods like Bunker Hill or Angelino Heights had stayed intact. But LA's wealth flight/suburbanization started in earnest a generation before the rest of the country, basically as soon as cars became widely available, and it wasn't driven by white flight or racial issues. There were more "pull" factors than "push" factors at play.

[skunkachunks1]

As bad as NYC got in the 70s, it was able to retain its wealth. The Upper East Side maintained its status as did Central Park South and Central Park West.

[PHX31]

Originally Posted by Docere

Pretty much every North American metro (except maybe Phoenix or Orlando or Las Vegas) has a 1920s era wealthy SFH area I think.

Most of north Central Avenue (say, north of Roosevelt St) for a couple miles was Phoenix's "Millionaire's Row" in the early 1900s through the 20s. Eventually, the area rezoned and redeveloped into the office building and "Midtown Phoenix" of today and Millionaire's Row was lost.

You can see some remnants in my photo thread in my sig line - Historic Mansions of North Central Phoenix.

[edale]

Cincinnati's east side neighborhoods of Hyde Park, Mt. Lookout, and the hilltop portions of Columbia-Tusculum have always been wealthy, and have retained their status over the years, even with Cincy's population collapse in the latter half of the 20th century.

In the metro, suburban Indian Hill is hands down the wealthiest community, but Hyde Park is definitely second. Indian Hill started out way back in the day as a place where wealthy Cincinnatians would build country houses. It still has a quasi-rural vibe-- huge lots, horse trails and stables, no commercial zoning, large expanses of conservation easements and undeveloped woodland. It's actually quite beautiful. Hyde Park attracts wealthy people who want to actually be able to walk places. Hyde Park Square is the neighborhood business district, and has lots of nice shops and restaurants. Cincinnati Country Club, the city's oldest and most prestigious, is in Hyde Park, as are several very highly regarded schools.

a sampling of some residential in the area:
1
2
3
4

and the commercial district:
Hyde Park Square
Hyde Park Square 2

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Hancock Park, while it is within city limits, is more the result of an earlier wave of wealth flight/suburbanization to what was considered the outskirts back then. I think it's interesting to imagine what the city would be like today if true in-city, old money neighborhoods like Bunker Hill or Angelino Heights had stayed intact. But LA's wealth flight/suburbanization started in earnest a generation before the rest of the country, basically as soon as cars became widely available, and it wasn't driven by white flight or racial issues. There were more "pull" factors than "push" factors at play.

Oh yes, but going by the OP, Hancock Park fits the description of an old money neighborhood that has stayed wealthy---and I emphasize the last part because these neighborhoods aren't necessarily "old money" anymore.

I don't know about other areas of the US, but in southern California, looking at different soCal areas' histories, it seemed that that's what the wealthy did during the late 1800s; they established a wealthy area and built ornate Victorian mansions---and then by 1900-1910, when Victorian architecture was no longer fashionable, they moved somewhere else. That's what happened with LA's Bunker Hill; the Victorian homes were considered horribly outdated and "old-fashioned" by the early 1900s, the proportions of the homes themselves were also antiquated, as well as the small windows, the ornate detailing, etc. So instead of remodeling them (or knocking them down and building a new house), they just moved to more fashionable developments.

The same thing happened in Pasadena. There was a "Millionaire's Row" on South Orange Grove Boulevard, with ornate Victorians. But by the 1900s-1910s, the wealthy started moving east (as well as the business district). Pasadena's Oak Knoll neighborhood became the fashionable one, and it still is---lots of mansions and wealthy people there, all around the (Langham) Huntington Hotel. South Orange Grove still has a few Victorian houses here and there, but now they're mainly post-war and later higher-end apartments and condos---with many retaining the big front lawns that the old mansions had.

In the first half of the 20th Century, Victorian houses were seen as horribly "ancient" in a bad way; that's why horror movies became associated with them (think "Psycho"). And that's why in LA, many Victorian homes were either torn down, or the neighborhoods became low-income; Victorians were cheap. This is why San Francisco in the mid-20th Century became home to Beatniks/artsy-types/Hippies because those Victorian houses were actually cheap, many falling into disrepair. It was only later that Victorians have become a source of pride for San Franciscans.