Which metros are more desirable at its cores than in the suburbs?

[YSL]

Seems like most of the huge home sales and the richest of the rich prefer single family homes in the suburbs or exurbs generally. Which areas is this inverse, where the plurality prefer the inner-city? NYC, SF, Miami, LA?

In Austin, downtown has the highest ppsf but when you look at the luxury homes sold ($2m+, they are mostly in the SFH in more suburban areas ).

[Crawford]

Using your specific definition, I would guess no metro in the U.S. would qualify.

Even in NYC metro, I'm confident more than 50% of high net households are outside the regional core.

[YSL]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Using your specific definition, I would guess no metro in the U.S. would qualify.

Even in NYC metro, I'm confident more than 50% of high net households are outside the regional core.

Meant the plurality not necessarily most. Suburban vs city vs exurban.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by YSL

Seems like most of the huge home sales and the richest of the rich prefer single family homes in the suburbs or exurbs generally. Which areas is this inverse, where the plurality prefer the inner-city? NYC, SF, Miami, LA?

In Austin, downtown has the highest ppsf but when you look at the luxury homes sold ($2m+, they are mostly in the SFH in more suburban areas ).

I believe I recently read something like 25 billionaires live in SF but the usual situation is the very rich have BOTH suburban and city homes. This is especially true in the Bay Area where a lot of the wealthiest people are in the tech industry and work (often at companies they founded) in Silicon Valley and own homes in places like Los Altos Hills, but also have city homes in SF. Larry Ellison, Mark Zuckerberg and others do this.

[pdxtex]

Originally Posted by YSL

Seems like most of the huge home sales and the richest of the rich prefer single family homes in the suburbs or exurbs generally. Which areas is this inverse, where the plurality prefer the inner-city? NYC, SF, Miami, LA?

In Austin, downtown has the highest ppsf but when you look at the luxury homes sold ($2m+, they are mostly in the SFH in more suburban areas ).

just guessing, id bargain only boston, DC, nyc and san francisco have higher median sale prices in the central neighborhoods. even in hot as hades seattle, the only neighborhood that declined in price the last quarter were condos in the cbd.

[mhays]

Those are still often $1,000+ per square foot. A downtick doesn't mean they're not really high priced.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by YSL

Seems like most of the huge home sales and the richest of the rich prefer single family homes in the suburbs or exurbs generally. Which areas is this inverse, where the plurality prefer the inner-city? NYC, SF, Miami, LA?

In Austin, downtown has the highest ppsf but when you look at the luxury homes sold ($2m+, they are mostly in the SFH in more suburban areas ).

Miami if you mean Miami Beach. Miami itself is not a place I'd want to live.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Using your specific definition, I would guess no metro in the U.S. would qualify.

Even in NYC metro, I'm confident more than 50% of high net households are outside the regional core.

I'd still want to live close to NYC's core for a variety of reasons (commuting, close to entertainment, etc...).

[pdxtex]

Originally Posted by mhays

Those are still often $1,000+ per square foot. A downtick doesn't mean they're not really high priced.

im not saying downtown real estate isn't expensive, its just not as expensive as close in neighborhoods or the east side of the metro. capital hill hit 1 million bucks over the winter but bellevue, kirkland and redmond went crazy. you can still get a house for 600k is west seattle. thats crazy that seems "reasonable".....portlands full good forumers!!

[599GTO]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Using your specific definition, I would guess no metro in the U.S. would qualify.

Even in NYC metro, I'm confident more than 50% of high net households are outside the regional core.

90 of the 125 billionaires in the NYC metro area live in Manhattan, so it’s safe to assume the majority of regular rich ($30M+) also live the city. The vast majority of luxury home sales in greater New York are condominiums in Manhattan. It’s the complete opposite in every other metro. Only 25 of the 70 or so billionaires in the Bay Area live in a San Francisco and the Bay Area’s most expensive properties are in the suburbs.

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by 599GTO

90 of the 125 billionaires in the NYC metro area live in Manhattan, so it’s safe to assume the majority of regular rich ($30M+) also live the city. The vast majority of luxury home sales in greater New York are condominiums in Manhattan. It’s the complete opposite in every other metro. Only 25 of the 70 or so billionaires in the Bay Area live in a San Francisco and the Bay Area’s most expensive properties are in the suburbs.

I totally agree with you, GTO. Of course, a number of the 30 million+ club will also own property on Long Island or Ct, but the real deal is Manhattan. Obviously, for.the very wealthy, accessing a bucolic setting close to NYC is imperative, but a stake in the middle.of it all be it on the Upper East or West Sides, Fifth or Madison and Park Avenues is the normal course. These are where the real estate values are superlative.

[emathias]

I think it's hard to measure. I think New York is really in a class by itself in the U.S. simply because its "core" has such a large number of housing where it actually accounts for a measurable proportion of the metro area housing. It also, of course, depends on how you define "the core" for various cities. For example, do you include all of Manhattan? Only south of 125th Street? Do you include parts of Brooklyn? Hoboken? Jersey City? For LA, what constitutes "the core"? In Boston, do you include all of Boston proper? Do you include Cambridge? Brookline? In Chicago do you include just the Central Area, or some of the hip neighborhoods that still have a lot of pricing power like Lincoln Park, Wicker Park, Lakeview?

In places like Portland, the Pearl District is popular, but the number of people who actually live there is a tiny fraction of the metro population. Even all of downtown Portland is listed as about 25,000 people according to Google, just over 1% of the entire metro, whereas Manhattan has almost 7% of New York's metro population. It's hard to get consistent stats for Chicago's "Central Area" for a lot of reasons, in 2010 the sum of the Loop, the Near North Side, the Near South Side, and the Near West Side came to about 185,000, only about 2% of the metro area. Given the explosive growth of the Central Area, that might hit 2.5% in 2020, but that's still a tiny portion of the region. If you add up the Loop, Near West Side, Near North Side, Near South Side, West Town, Lincoln Park, and Lakeview, you get to about 4.5%, and that's still not a big portion of the region.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by 599GTO

90 of the 125 billionaires in the NYC metro area live in Manhattan, so it’s safe to assume the majority of regular rich ($30M+) also live the city. The vast majority of luxury home sales in greater New York are condominiums in Manhattan. It’s the complete opposite in every other metro.

Well, yeah, I agree that NYC almost certainly has the highest concentration of regional wealth in its core (I assume by core we mean Manhattan and immediately adjacent areas like Brownstone Brooklyn). And the super-rich are likely mostly in the core.

But I doubt that more than 50% of the region's wealthy (say net worth of $5 million+) live in the core. There's a ton of suburban wealth, in all directions. There are 24 million in the region, and maybe 2-3 million in the core (depending on where you want to draw boundaries).

[Sun Belt]

Q: Which metros are more desirable at its cores than in the suburbs?

How are we defining "cores"? Is that the downtown area, central business district or is it the city limits which for some vary greatly [S.F. vs. Houston city limits].

What is L.A. core? Downtown to the Westside? Then, yes the core is more desirable than in the suburbs. If it's just downtown then, no.

[Steely Dan]

if we're basing this on a cost/SF basis, wouldn't just about all cores be more expensive (desirable) than the burbs?

people move to the burbs because you can get more space for the same money, and a lot of americans love space.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

if we're basing this on a cost/SF basis, wouldn't just about all cores be more expensive (desirable) than the burbs?

I think that's generally, but not universally, true.

Certainly Detroit or Cleveland's core doesn't have psf prices comparable to the most expensive suburbs. I imagine the same is true for quite a few metros.

Even SF, I'm not entirely sure. Is SF proper more expensive psf than Palo Alto? Probably not.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

What is L.A. core? Downtown to the Westside? Then, yes the core is more desirable than in the suburbs. If it's just downtown then, no.

I'd call this the "favored quarter", not the core. Obviously favored quarters will be more expensive.

[YSL]

Originally Posted by emathias

I think it's hard to measure. I think New York is really in a class by itself in the U.S. simply because its "core" has such a large number of housing where it actually accounts for a measurable proportion of the metro area housing.

Not really though. There aren't many super rich people in Bronx or Queens or Staten Island. It's nearly all Manhattan and the part of BK closest to Manhattan. And Manhattan and that area of Brooklyn are like 2m pop compared to the 20m+ that live outside of it.

EDIT: found this. most states don't release this but the few i could find -

Number of tax returns with incomes above > $1 MILLION

Manhattan 23,553
Westchester 7,789
Nassau 5,414
Suffolk 2,643
Kings: 2,506
Queens 619
Rockland: 573
Staten Island: 268
Bronx 162

NJ or CT does not release this, but looking at this Bloomberg article, I'd guess the NYC metro counties in those states would produce 10-15k in total https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...x-bracket-most Nonetheless, NY appears to be the only American metro where rich people seem to have a very clear preference for the city.

Number of tax returns with incomes above > $1 MILLION

San Francisco 4,954
Santa Clara 7,922
San Mateo 4,879
Marin 2,163
Alameda 2735
Contra Costa 1,958

Number of tax returns with incomes above > $1 MILLION

Los Angeles County 15,607
Orange County 5,971

of course you can't read much into LA since it's a massive county


Number of tax returns with incomes above > $1 MILLION

Boston 2,031
Newton 1,284
Wellesley 853
Weston 555,
Cambridge 471

Number of tax returns with incomes above > $1 MILLION

Philadelphia - 775
Montgomery 2,746
Chester 1,745
Bucks - 1,375
Delaware - 1,235

Number of tax returns with incomes above > $1 MILLION

Washington, DC 2,030
Montgomery County MD 3,225
Baltimore County - 1,322
Ann Arundel County -694
Howard County - 540
Baltimore City - 316
Fredrick County - 138
Prince George's County -110

No info for VA

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...KCK/story.html
http://lohud.nydatabases.com/databas...aires-new-york
https://infogram.com/californias_millionaires_by_county
https://www.bizjournals.com/philadel...naires-in.html
https://infogram.com/7860a5d0-1b76-4...e-d97f0b4aa0b9

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

I believe I recently read something like 25 billionaires live in SF but the usual situation is the very rich have BOTH suburban and city homes. This is especially true in the Bay Area where a lot of the wealthiest people are in the tech industry and work (often at companies they founded) in Silicon Valley and own homes in places like Los Altos Hills, but also have city homes in SF. Larry Ellison, Mark Zuckerberg and others do this.

This is definitely true. Many tech billionaires in the Bay Area also own homes in The City even if their official residence is on the Peninsula in some cases only 30 miles away.

[JManc]

I feel sorry for anyone who lives next door to M. Zuckerberg. I am not convinced he is a member of the human species...