"Richest Looking" Areas

[kwabbit]

I was comparing Redistricter's education and income maps against Google Maps street view to better understand LI for NY-03. A lot of wealthiest NYC suburbs, which are also among the richest places in the US, are pretty underwhelming on street view. The average incomes are $400k+, like $600k+ for Scarsdale and Bronxville, but the housing stock wasn't distinctly more upscale than you'd see in any more affluent NJ suburb. Pretty standard 2500-3000 sq ft UMC houses for the most part and not that many mansions, although some neighborhoods had those. But that's also something you'd see in an NJ suburb with a $300k average income.

I know you have to be very rich to live in these places, given a standard house is $2 Million, and that sorting plays a part. Rich people want to live with other rich people, even if their home is not necessarily bigger than a home half the cost a few miles away. However, it seems like the exclusivity/sorting factor for these suburbs, along with the general NYC HCOL, outpaces the actual wealth in making these places look super rich.

This led me to wonder if the favored quarters of other cities actually looked richer just because of a lower COL and lower exclusivity factor. Some potential candidates that come to mind would be Winnetka, the Villages in Houston, etc. Winnetka seems to have a similar phenomenon as Scarsdale or Bronxville however.

[ProgressiveModerate]

This is an interesting question. Reminds me of San Fransisco where many upper-middle-class and wealthy neighborhoods look almost like something in a 3rd world countries.

Wealthiest looking can be a bit subjective, especially depending on whether you're viewing it through the lens of old or new money.

From my experience the wealthiest looking areas are usually high-end vacation areas with high concentrations of second homes. Because many of these are second homes, the true extent of the wealth may not be captured by census stats and stuff.

Parts of the Hamptons, Nantucket MA or Aspen CO fit this vibe. I think what helps is these places all have coherent vibes and in the case of Colorado mountain resorts the vibes is heavily enhanced by natural beauty.

I'd also argue many parts of Manhattan just because of seeing all the large corporate glass office buildings.

There’s definitely a lot of flashy sort of wealth in the Miami area but to me it all feels very cheap and you often have situations where it’s only in small pockets and not consistent and a lot of it still feels somewhat cheap to me

I'll have to sleep on this question a bit though.

[King of Kensington]

NYC region may actually be big and rich enough to have sorting between the 0.1%ers (Wall Street hedge fund managers, celebrities etc.) and the "regular" 1-2%ers (like medical specialists and law firm partners).  I would think Bronxville and Scarsdale are the latter demographic.  While the "super-rich" are more in Manhattan or coastal Connecticut.

[ottermax]

on the West Coast:

Rancho Santa Fe in San Diego
South Coast Orange County (San Clemente, Dana Point, Laguna Beach, Newport Beach)
Malibu, Thousand Oaks, Beverly Hills
Monterey County
Atherton, Palo Alto, Los Gatos (Silicon Valley)
Roseville and other NE Sacramento burbs
Medina and Bellevue outside Seattle
Hawai'i Kai, Kahala, and Aina Haina in Honolulu

... lots of wealthy, clean, and fancy looking places near our coasts!

Also Scottsdale and Paradise Valley if you want a desert vibe. And any mountain resort town.

[NorCalifornio]

on the West Coast:

Rancho Santa Fe in San Diego
South Coast Orange County (San Clemente, Dana Point, Laguna Beach, Newport Beach)
Malibu, Thousand Oaks, Beverly Hills
Monterey County
Atherton, Palo Alto, Los Gatos (Silicon Valley)
Roseville and other NE Sacramento burbs
Medina and Bellevue outside Seattle
Hawai'i Kai, Kahala, and Aina Haina in Honolulu

... lots of wealthy, clean, and fancy looking places near our coasts!

Also Scottsdale and Paradise Valley if you want a desert vibe. And any mountain resort town.

You should probably specify coastal Monterey County. You'd never guess based on which areas are most well-known, but a majority of Monterey County residents live in the Salinas Valley. Very much not a rich or rich-looking region.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Where I am "rich areas" are a dime-a-dozen. They're quite boring.

However, there are some with a quaintness to them, like Ridgewood near me.

[NorCalifornio]

on the West Coast:

Rancho Santa Fe in San Diego
South Coast Orange County (San Clemente, Dana Point, Laguna Beach, Newport Beach)
Malibu, Thousand Oaks, Beverly Hills
Monterey County
Atherton, Palo Alto, Los Gatos (Silicon Valley)
Roseville and other NE Sacramento burbs
Medina and Bellevue outside Seattle
Hawai'i Kai, Kahala, and Aina Haina in Honolulu

... lots of wealthy, clean, and fancy looking places near our coasts!

Also Scottsdale and Paradise Valley if you want a desert vibe. And any mountain resort town.

Roseville has plenty of wealthy people, but on a list that includes Malibu, Atherton, and Beverly Hills it might as well be Compton. And if kwabbit thinks Winnetka and Scarsdale don't look rich enough, he'll be utterly unimpressed by Roseville, lol.

For Sacramento suburbs, I think the only thing that might work would be Granite Bay and certain neighborhoods in El Dorado Hills and Folsom. The trouble is, based on the few Google Streetviews I just looked up, none of the places kwabbit mentioned look underwhelming to me. If those are "standard UMC houses", then what should a rich neighborhood look like? Just mansion after mansion after mansion?

[kwabbit]

on the West Coast:

Rancho Santa Fe in San Diego
South Coast Orange County (San Clemente, Dana Point, Laguna Beach, Newport Beach)
Malibu, Thousand Oaks, Beverly Hills
Monterey County
Atherton, Palo Alto, Los Gatos (Silicon Valley)
Roseville and other NE Sacramento burbs
Medina and Bellevue outside Seattle
Hawai'i Kai, Kahala, and Aina Haina in Honolulu

... lots of wealthy, clean, and fancy looking places near our coasts!

Also Scottsdale and Paradise Valley if you want a desert vibe. And any mountain resort town.

Roseville has plenty of wealthy people, but on a list that includes Malibu, Atherton, and Beverly Hills it might as well be Compton. And if kwabbit thinks Winnetka and Scarsdale don't look rich enough, he'll be utterly unimpressed by Roseville, lol.

For Sacramento suburbs, I think the only thing that might work would be Granite Bay and certain neighborhoods in El Dorado Hills and Folsom. The trouble is, based on the few Google Streetviews I just looked up, none of the places kwabbit mentioned look underwhelming to me. If those are "standard UMC houses", then what should a rich neighborhood look like? Just mansion after mansion after mansion?

Maybe we got a different sample of street views, but this is what I had for Scarsdale:

Scarsdale 1

Scarsdale 2

Scarsdale 3

Seems quite wealthy, but doesn't come across as richest area in the United States to me. Yes, I was kind of expecting mansion after mansion if the average person is making $700k.

Winnetka 1

Winnetka 2

Winnetka 3

Beautiful homes and beautiful area, but it doesn't scream richest town in Midwest to me. I'm comparing these places to Princeton, NJ, since that might be the richest/most exclusive town in Central Jersey, and I wouldn't say they exceed Princeton. Princeton's average income is like $350k I believe.

[Skill and Chance]

The answer to this is unequivocally Texas outer suburbs- lined with giant houses that look like what you would expect the wealthiest person in NYC or SF to live in but "only" cost $2M, so there's a bunch of them in a row.

[ottermax]

on the West Coast:

Rancho Santa Fe in San Diego
South Coast Orange County (San Clemente, Dana Point, Laguna Beach, Newport Beach)
Malibu, Thousand Oaks, Beverly Hills
Monterey County
Atherton, Palo Alto, Los Gatos (Silicon Valley)
Roseville and other NE Sacramento burbs
Medina and Bellevue outside Seattle
Hawai'i Kai, Kahala, and Aina Haina in Honolulu

... lots of wealthy, clean, and fancy looking places near our coasts!

Also Scottsdale and Paradise Valley if you want a desert vibe. And any mountain resort town.

Roseville has plenty of wealthy people, but on a list that includes Malibu, Atherton, and Beverly Hills it might as well be Compton. And if kwabbit thinks Winnetka and Scarsdale don't look rich enough, he'll be utterly unimpressed by Roseville, lol.

For Sacramento suburbs, I think the only thing that might work would be Granite Bay and certain neighborhoods in El Dorado Hills and Folsom. The trouble is, based on the few Google Streetviews I just looked up, none of the places kwabbit mentioned look underwhelming to me. If those are "standard UMC houses", then what should a rich neighborhood look like? Just mansion after mansion after mansion?

I've never been to Sacramento so I am happy to be corrected! I've just heard that Granite Bay is the star of the Central Valley.

[Sol]

Toronto's Bridle Path is probably the most "rich looking" place in Canada:

FYI these URLs are stretching the page

[wnwnwn]

Las Casuarinas us the moat rich looking (closed) neightborhood in Lima. Otherwise, a good part of La Molina. San Isidro looks more trendy/old-money urban mix.

[Tintrlvr]

NYC region may actually be big and rich enough to have sorting between the 0.1%ers (Wall Street hedge fund managers, celebrities etc.) and the "regular" 1-2%ers (like medical specialists and law firm partners).  I would think Bronxville and Scarsdale are the latter demographic.  While the "super-rich" are more in Manhattan or coastal Connecticut.

The latter don't really dominate any particular town, though. You can look at Street View in coastal New Rochelle (Premium Point), Rye (Peningo Neck) or Sands Point, or somewhere like Belle Haven in Greenwich, CT and see how rich they are, but the local municipalities include many humdrum UMC areas and in some cases even some areas that wouldn't qualify as well-off at all.

Probably the most purely super-rich municipality in the NYC metro with no areas within municipal boundaries that look even UMC is Alpine, NJ.

One other thing to add is that NYC metro super-rich areas don't necessarily look as flashy as somewhere like Atherton, California because the homes are older and smaller.

[kwabbit]

NYC region may actually be big and rich enough to have sorting between the 0.1%ers (Wall Street hedge fund managers, celebrities etc.) and the "regular" 1-2%ers (like medical specialists and law firm partners).  I would think Bronxville and Scarsdale are the latter demographic.  While the "super-rich" are more in Manhattan or coastal Connecticut.

The latter don't really dominate any particular town, though. You can look at Street View in coastal New Rochelle (Premium Point), Rye (Peningo Neck) or Sands Point, or somewhere like Belle Haven in Greenwich, CT and see how rich they are, but the local municipalities include many humdrum UMC areas and in some cases even some areas that wouldn't qualify as well-off at all.

Probably the most purely super-rich municipality in the NYC metro with no areas within municipal boundaries that look even UMC is Alpine, NJ.

Alpine is more impressive. Those few that you mentioned seem to have the most valuable properties on private roads. Street view is sparse in those neighborhoods.

The common trait for all the ultra-wealthy neighborhoods is beautifully landscaped lawns. That seems more indicative of wealth than home size.

[Unelectable Bystander]

The answer to this is unequivocally Texas outer suburbs- lined with giant houses that look like what you would expect the wealthiest person in NYC or SF to live in but "only" cost $2M, so there's a bunch of them in a row.

Yeah the key has gotta be not where the wealthiest are located but locations with a number of wealthy individuals and sprawling land to keep the cost of living low. Suburbs in Texas, OKC, Indianapolis, Des Moines.

[Bismarck]

The answer to this is unequivocally Texas outer suburbs- lined with giant houses that look like what you would expect the wealthiest person in NYC or SF to live in but "only" cost $2M, so there's a bunch of them in a row.

Yeah the key has gotta be not where the wealthiest are located but locations with a number of wealthy individuals and sprawling land to keep the cost of living low. Suburbs in Texas, OKC, Indianapolis, Des Moines.

Yeah Carmel, Indiana, is a very wealthy looking place. Big houses everywhere, fancy fountains and sculptures in the roundabouts, the big European style concert hall.

[King of Kensington]

NYC region may actually be big and rich enough to have sorting between the 0.1%ers (Wall Street hedge fund managers, celebrities etc.) and the "regular" 1-2%ers (like medical specialists and law firm partners).  I would think Bronxville and Scarsdale are the latter demographic.  While the "super-rich" are more in Manhattan or coastal Connecticut.

The latter don't really dominate any particular town, though. You can look at Street View in coastal New Rochelle (Premium Point), Rye (Peningo Neck) or Sands Point, or somewhere like Belle Haven in Greenwich, CT and see how rich they are, but the local municipalities include many humdrum UMC areas and in some cases even some areas that wouldn't qualify as well-off at all.

Probably the most purely super-rich municipality in the NYC metro with no areas within municipal boundaries that look even UMC is Alpine, NJ.

One other thing to add is that NYC metro super-rich areas don't necessarily look as flashy as somewhere like Atherton, California because the homes are older and smaller.

They don't numerically dominate any town, no.  But there might be some differences in where they live. 

[Roll Roons]

The answer to this is unequivocally Texas outer suburbs- lined with giant houses that look like what you would expect the wealthiest person in NYC or SF to live in but "only" cost $2M, so there's a bunch of them in a row.

Yeah the key has gotta be not where the wealthiest are located but locations with a number of wealthy individuals and sprawling land to keep the cost of living low. Suburbs in Texas, OKC, Indianapolis, Des Moines.

Yeah Carmel, Indiana, is a very wealthy looking place. Big houses everywhere, fancy fountains and sculptures in the roundabouts, the big European style concert hall.

I remember a video of Carmel’s high school campus went viral for being so big and fancy that it almost looked like a college.

[RI]

A tour of Washington's Gold Coast by boat is the richest-looking area I've seen in person.

[Agonized-Statism]

The Woodlands is one of these IMO. Sort of Houston's Thousand Oaks.

Monterey County

... lots of wealthy, clean, and fancy looking places near our coasts!

Wealthy, sure- there's a handful of tiny homes in reach only for millionaires. Clean and fancy, no. And that's just Monterey the town...don't get me started on the other towns in the county. Godforsaken miserable place. If I never go back it'll be too soon.

[pikachu]

Upper East Side between Fifth and Lex.

[It’s so Joever]

It’s small but Cherry Hills Village is a good sleeper pick.

[First1There]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/New_York_Midtown_Skyline_at_night_-_Jan_2006_edit1.jpg

New York City

[Sol]

FYI this image is stretching the page

[First1There]

Fixed Image