Examples of wealthy communities and cities with population decline

[RST500]

It's a general perception that places that are struggling economically such as the Rust Belt have declining populations but what are some cities, towns, or suburbs that are upper middle class or wealthy that are experiencing population decline?

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by RST500

It's a general perception that places that are struggling economically such as the Rust Belt have declining populations but what are some cities, towns, or suburbs that are upper middle class or wealthy that are experiencing population decline?

It does happen.

San Marino, California, a wealthy Los Angeles suburb, experienced declining population from the 1980 through the 2000 census, but for 2010, it went up a little: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Marino,_California

The LA suburb I grew up in, Cerritos, though not wealthy, is a middle/upper-middle income community that experienced population decline; knowing first-hand, the population declined basically because it was a new-ish suburb that grew a lot in the 1970s-1980s with young families, and then after the 1990 census, it became a place with a lot of empty-nesters (my parents included): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerritos%2C_California

[LA21st]

I'm sure this is true for alot of older suburbs, actually, for the above reasons.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by RST500

It's a general perception that places that are struggling economically such as the Rust Belt have declining populations but what are some cities, towns, or suburbs that are upper middle class or wealthy that are experiencing population decline?

The Northern suburbs of Detroit are still very wealthy and nice despite Detroit having hit rock bottom.

[Handro]

What's your measure for wealthy? Chicago metro has third largest GDP of all metros in the US (after new york and LA) and has a higher GDP than many US states/European countries but has steadily lost population for years. I believe New York lost population this year as well, but I may be mis-remembering.

Low income people leave high COL areas, and Chicago COL has outpaced it's average income. I assume the same is true for New York or any high wealth place that loses population.

[MonkeyRonin]

It's not uncommon for gentrfiying areas to see population loss as small multi-family buildings are converted into SFH, and units housing families are replaced by wealthy singles or couples.

Likewise, wealthy, anti-development suburban areas can decline as household sizes shrink.

[Docere]

West Vancouver, BC. It's rapidly becoming a community of the elderly and offshore wealth.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Obadno

The Northern suburbs of Detroit are still very wealthy and nice despite Detroit having hit rock bottom.

Those areas are growing, though. Oakland County has never recorded population loss. And that was always the healthiest and most diversified part of the region, even during the Great Recession. Oakland County isn't NIMBY or old. There are old, wealthy communities within Oakland, though, and those are mostly stagnant.

This thread question is about localities or regions? Obviously tons of localities have stagnant/decliing population, even in the Sunbelt. As long as they're old or NIMBY, if they're rich they'll probably be stagnant at best. Stagnant but prosperous regions are less common, but not rare. Most of the Northeast Corridor is pretty stagnant population-wise.

Greenwich Village has the largest population decline in NYC. Almost totally landmarked/downzoned so new construction is near-impossible, extremely wealthy, NIMBY beyond belief, and unit count is plummeting as wealthy households combine units within buildings. You can't get much more prosperous than the West Village, yet there will probably be significant neighborhood population decline in the coming decades.

[vanman]

Originally Posted by Docere

West Vancouver, BC. It's rapidly becoming a community of the elderly and offshore wealth.

West Vancouver may not be growing nearly as fast as the rest of the metro but it is not in decline. It's still growing.

https://www.nsnews.com/news/north-sh...r-s-1.23623148

[dave8721]

Miami-Beach's population dropped in the 1980's-1990s' when it gentrified.

[suburbanite]

Any place where buildings originally meant to house many are converted to SFH for those who can afford them by themselves.

- Lincoln Park in Chicago
- The most desirable brownstone neighbourhoods around Prospect Park
- Pacific Heights in San Fran?

[Docere]

Originally Posted by vanman

West Vancouver may not be growing nearly as fast as the rest of the metro but it is not in decline. It's still growing.

https://www.nsnews.com/news/north-sh...r-s-1.23623148

2016 census showed a decline, I guess growth is in the positive again.

[RST500]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

It's not uncommon for gentrfiying areas to see population loss as small multi-family buildings are converted into SFH, and units housing families are replaced by wealthy singles or couples.

Likewise, wealthy, anti-development suburban areas can decline as household sizes shrink.

Hollywood and Echo Park in LA are a good example of that where gentrification caused population decline.

I was thinking of higher end suburbs. I've visited West Lake Village, a very affluent suburb of LA and Del Mar near San Diego and noticed mostly older people and not a ton of families.

Those areas were traditionally very family oriented.

Boomers staying in their homes after their children head off to college.

[liat91]

Originally Posted by RST500

Hollywood and Echo Park in LA are a good example of that where gentrification caused population decline.

I was thinking of higher end suburbs. I've visited West Lake Village, a very affluent suburb of LA and Del Mar near San Diego and noticed mostly older people and not a ton of families.

Those areas were traditionally very family oriented.

Boomers staying in their homes after their children head off to college.

Same dynamic happening in most metros. Los Gatos in Bay Area, Mercer Island in Seattle, Bronxville for NY etc.. Existing real estate has become a massive conduit for commercial investment

Personally, I think properties that are vacant in locations where a certain local affordability threshold is reached, should have the property tax amount doubled. 6% of a local population being able to afford the median home price is unacceptable.

I would put the line at 30%.

[spoonman]

Originally Posted by RST500

Boomers staying in their homes after their children head off to college.

I agree. In CA, I suspect this has a lot to do with Prop 13. Selling a home with artificially low tax rates to buy another home with market rates would in many cases invalidate any cost savings associated with the move.

[PFloyd]

Greenwich, Connecticut

Why so many of America’s financial elite have left Greenwich

https://www.economist.com/finance-an...left-greenwich

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by RST500

It's a general perception that places that are struggling economically such as the Rust Belt have declining populations but what are some cities, towns, or suburbs that are upper middle class or wealthy that are experiencing population decline?

Almost all wealthy suburbs in the NYC area are seeing a population decline. The basic dynamic is this:

1. In most areas, they are 100% built out, and snob zoning precludes building any more densely. Thus the total number of housing units/households does not rise.

2. Family size is falling, meaning all other things considered, the number of children continues to drop in these communities.

3. Even beyond that, living in a high-cost, dated home on a relatively large acreage isn't that popular among younger people of childbearing age. Many prefer living in the city or in "urban-lite" locations around walkable business districts. Others would prefer to get more house for their money and move to a lower cost metro.

The result of all of this is these towns are steadily climbing in terms of average age, and the number of children is plummeting. Basically they're filled up with empty nesters aging in place. At some point all these boomers are going to die and the local housing prices will collapse, but we're still at least a decade away from that.

In general though, I think it's the case that any fully-built-out suburb without appreciable new construction will decline in population now, even if it's only a few percent per decade.

[Crawford]

LOL at that article. "Small town living". Yeah, that describes Greenwich...

Greenwich has underperformed because it's probably the most popular suburb for financial services professionals, and the share of said professionals moving to the suburbs has declined relative to the past generations. If, say, 70% of HNW financial types moved to the suburbs in the past, and now it's say, 50%, that has a huge impact on suburban home prices.

And Greenwich has gigantic homes. Young, affluent households tend to not want to deal with upkeep. And suburbs are less practical with two professional incomes. Very hard to have kids and deal with two commutes, as opposed to living in the city and minutes from the workplace. If dad works at Cravath and mom works at Goldman, Greenwich makes no sense.

Greenwich actually has some of the lowest property taxes of any affluent community in the Northeast, and income taxes are still lower than NY and NJ. Its (very relative) decline is due to changed living preferences, not taxes. Closer-in rich suburbs, like Bronxville and Rye, have sky-high property taxes but have fared better because of shorter commutes.

[eschaton]

I also think it's important to note how even among those eventually "suburban bound" overall demand has dropped.

I mean, back in the 1980s, professional-class people in many metros moved directly to the suburbs after college, often renting in a "garden apartment" complex, then buying a "starter home" of some sort as soon as they got married...which was often well before 30. Then the kids started popping out.

Now, people with high levels of education are much more apt to wait until their mid to late 30s - or early 40s - to have kids. And once they have kids, even if they're one of those people who cares about "school districts" they'll often wait until their kid is actually kindergarten age to pick a district. As a result, they're not even really in the market for the suburban home with the top school district until they're 40-45 - by which time they're looking for a "forever home" - not a "starter home."

[eschaton]

It's also worth noting that it's unfortunately speaking in the financial self-interest of the current residents of upper-middle class suburbs to not do anything about the population decline. The basic reason is the single biggest cost related to local government is K-12 education. To the extent that the number of children enrolled in public schools declines, it is a boon for the taxes of local residents, since it helps keep local governmental expenses in check.

While real estate options which appeal to younger single people (like apartments) might result in more tax revenue with minimal new governmental expenses, adding types of housing which are more appealing to modern families (like homes on smaller acreage) would be more likely to ultimately result in higher taxes for incumbent homeowners.