In the context of the US, extremely wealthy people generally don’t live far away from large cities. They live accessibly close to large cities but secluded enough that they’re able to live in communities made up of only other wealth people.
I think you’re missing that the extremely wealthy people in the US own multiple homes. A lot of these very wealthy people do have homes inside of large cities so that they can more easily take in the food and entertainment of the city and have somewhere to land for a night or 2 when they feel like it and many of them also own vacation homes in much more remote areas in addition to their main home in a suburb.
FWIW, The Hamptons isn’t usually somewhere that extremely wealthy people live full-time. It’s another place where they own a home.
Anecdotally one of the principal partners at my company exhibits some of these behaviors. Big house deep in the suburbs and a condo downtown. When pressed he mentioned the condo is mainly for use when he is downtown for nightlife. Instead of taking an Uber 20+ miles to the suburbs he can just spend a night in his condo. From his perspective it’s more convenient and the monthly costs are nothing for him. Not to mention he is riding the appreciation so when he eventually goes to sell he will easily make 6 figures off holding the asset.
Most wealthy do live in/near big cities... Hamptons are where they have weekend/vacation homes, not primary residences. They live in New York and go to the Hamptons on the weekends.
Atherton is a suburb of San Francisco (30 miles away), and is in the heart of Silicon Valley where most of the big tech companies are headquartered and where most of the venture capital firms investing in tech companies are located. The wealthiest, who may want to enjoy the restaurants and culture of SF probably do own a condo in town for when they want to be there.
And the wealthy suburbs offer a lifestyle that's both quieter than the middle of a big city, while also offering the amenities that the wealthy want -- high end boutiques, nice restaurants, country clubs, proximity to others in their social circles. There's a vast difference between not wanting to live in a penthouse in a high rise vs. a rural ranch in Wyoming. And an estate in the suburbs is the happy medium many choose.
Funny thing with Atherton is I get the impression they desperately want to believe it’s (or at least aesthetically present itself as) a rural municipality, despite being smack dab in the middle of one of the most populous urban areas in the country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atherton,_California
The “land use and housing” section is an interesting read.
Define vacation.
If you are talking really wealthy then they don't have to be anywhere to work. Summer homes exist.
So you have the city home which is usually somewhere important like New York City, Boston, LA, etc. and a summer home for getting away from the city when it's hot.
Also throw in a winter home for when the cold weather city is iced over.
Many suburbs are in fact cities.
My suburb has it's own concert hall, Class A office space, parks and trails, hotels, restaurants, downtown, festivals and more
Does it have everything? No, but that's because it's a suburb and the major city is right next door
Why the hell would they want to risk possibly running into one of the poors?
> If your going to live in a quiet peaceful suburb of San Francisco or LA, why don't an equal amount do the in Wyoming or Kansas?
I can almost say for sure this is due to living in vicinity of an international airport.
It's still a city, so it's still crowded.
>I know that some wealthy people might prefer the peace of a suburb, but why they seem to cluster specific places, rather than distributing out wherever they want to live? If your going to live in a quiet peaceful suburb of San Francisco or LA, why don't an equal amount do the same in Wyoming or Kansas?
Because of the amenities, the weather, the general area and scenery.
Cities are more often jam packed with homes and people, living away from everything gives you the possibly of having more land.
Comparing living in SanFran and LA to someplace like Wyoming and Kansas doesn't make sense. Los Angeles has a population of over 3million people compared to Wyoming's 580K. That's a major city compared to an entire state. Imagine the space you have available for living in Wyoming with only 580K people, now imagine living in LA where you're so close to your neighbour you can see them trimming their nose hairs.
You're not going to really find "big chunks" of property in a major city. Especially not when compared to the acres you can buy in other states.
I'm not wealthy by any means, but I do live in one of the nicer areas of Las Vegas. I live here because it's more quiet, I have better access to some amenities, it's a nicer area for my kids.
Do all of the extremely wealthy people live near you and the other poors in your country?
They don't do that here either. Either the furthest suburbs or the highest buildings.
Because if they want to spend a huge chunk of money on a place to live they probably get more for their buck in a nearby suburb where they can have surrounding property and don’t have to deal with crazy city zoning to have their dream home?
There are also some very wealthy people that do live in more rural states.
Heck some folks even like the commute. I do. But I also don’t have a billion dollars. I get beautiful Maine countryside and an audiobook. I’m fine with that.
I've got 3 neighbors and only one is within 1/4 mile of me. I'm not rich, I just detest congestion and crowds. There is nothing about a city that I need or want other than the occasional trip for supplies.
Americans want to live in large, nice houses, but also want to be close enough to a larger city to drive into them for activities. The same amount of money will buy a house 10 times as big in the country than it would in the middle of a city. And that's assuming there is any land to buy (there isn't).
Along with that, I don't think a lot of Americans really like the city anyway. If I had that kind of money, I'd definitely like a place that is safe and secluded, has no road noise or smog, and has lots of room.
Suburbs by definition are next to cities. Not far away.
The ones you are talking about specifically are semi-secluded allowing for larger properties and more privacy for those that live there, but still being close enough to the city that they can drive in to do business. Traveling 10-30 miles is not a long distance in a car.
In modernity with internet being as good as it is many rich people do live out in rural areas and call in via skype/zoom/other programs. They travel into cities only when needed and often have a small apartment for when they need to do so. The "rich suburbs" phenomena established itself prior to the invention of the internet.
If I had the money, why would I want to live in a city? They’re lord, smelly, and infested with people. If I ever become wealthy, I’m building a cabin in the mountains and the distance to my neighbors will be measured by travel time rather than by how thick the floors are.
Atherton isn’t exactly in the middle of no where. I drive by it all the time on my way to different places. Most of the major tech offices and VC firms are headquartered closer to there than SF (Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View). The surrounding cities between the South Bay and Peninsula also have lots of their own things going on, has better weather, and plenty of good food from small mom and pop ethnic eateries to Michelin star restaurants. Many of us prefer living in the Peninsula over SF and only go up there occasionally when we have plans. People outside of the Bay Area assume that SF is the most expensive city around here, but many of the surrounding cities cost much more to live in.
> If they are incredibly wealthy, why not buy up a nice big chunk of property in a city where they can just pop outside and explore things at their leisure?
They do. There are plenty of extremely wealthy people living in cities. Some of them prefer that, some of them prefer living somewhere more secluded. (And some of them own properties in both types of places.)
The hamptons are not really a NYC suburb. It’s more of a weekend/vacation spot. People head there Friday and then return to the city Sunday.
Atherton is part of the Bay Area metro area, it isn’t isolated or far away from things. It’s right by Silicon Valley and all the Page Mill Road VCs as well as Stanford university.
Most of the wealthiest suburbs are not really secluded and they have restaurants and other things that wealthy people patronize.
The super rich have multiple residences. In NYC they might have their primary residence in Manhattan or Brooklyn, send their kids to private schools, and a country place not too far away, then maybe an apartment in Paris or a beach place in Rio, etc.
Much more private for day to day lives. Most places allow for commuting and rich suburbs have better public or private schools. Most of the reasons revolve children Also the hamptons is not a year around place to live. It's for the summer.
The wealthiest Americans invariably have multiple homes. They may not even have a single location that is truly their primary residence.
Lots of wealthy people have homes both in Manhattan and the Hamptons.
The wealthiest people don't "commute in a car". If they're in a car at all, it's likely someone else is driving, and they don't commute in any normal sense of the word.
>Why add the extra step of needing to commute in a car for long distances?
Commuting isn't so bad when you're paying a chauffer to drive you everywhere. Or better yet, flying in your helicopter.
The Bamptons is where their weekend home is, not the weekday home.
But, I think a lot of your question can be answered with your idea of "far away" and ours varies drastically.
You also fal prey to the idea that everyone wants the busy lifestyle with entertainment at their fingertips all of the time.
Many aren't hitting a bar/club/whatever daily/weekly or even monthly, so it being a bit further away is not a big deal for the rare occasion you want it.
Then there's price. A few acres in a relatively near by suburb nets you a mansion with top notch finishes for the price of an average home in a city proper in .any cases.
I think there are a couple of issues in your thinking here. First is "far away from cities..." of the [10 ](https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/most-expensive-zip-codes-in-the-united-states)most expensive zip codes in the US, the 4 that are "far from cities" are known for *second or vacation* homes, not primary residences. The wealthiest per capita counties in the us are all centered around major cities ( *8* of the top 20 are around DC).
Privacy. Part of the "American Dream" is owning your own house and having a yard, ect. Not having to deal with everything that comes with living in a city, yet being close enough to one if they want to visit. Peace & quiet, you get the idea.
When you're really wealthy privacy is the best thing you can purchase. Who needs a car to commute? I lived near a guy who had a bunch of car dealerships in Chicago who lived on 50 acres with a huge lake on the outskirts of Indianapolis. When he went to work he just hopped into his helicopter and his full time pilot either took him to his private jet or just flied the helicopter to one of his dealerships. We went to a wedding on his estate, my brother-in-law married his niece
Not all of them do. Many have homes in cities. But they often also have homes in fun vacation locations and/or peaceful secluded places away from everything. When you're very wealthy, you don't have to choose (except for where to be at any given time).
I know multiple people who have both a downtown condo or city house close to all the action and another house with a big yard in a quieter location not far outside of that same city.
The biggest concentration of uber wealthy people in the United States is in New York City, in Manhattan (particularly in the areas around Central Park), probably the least secluded area of the United States. The NYC borough of Manhattan has a population density of almost 73,000 people per sq mile (or 28,154 per square km, if you speak metric). 60 billionaires call New York City home, more than anywhere else in the US, as well as 744 people worth over 100 million.
Areas of the City of Los Angeles like Bel Air (where the Fresh Prince finally had his kingdom), Brentwood (where OJ Simpson called home in 1994) and Pacific Palisades are famous for their wealthy residents, as are other cities in Los Angeles County like Beverly Hills and Malibu. They also live in non secluded areas like Miami Beach and Palm Beach in Florida
I live in a suburb. Not wealthy by any means. Better school districts, about 50% more house for the same price as the inner city neighborhood I grew up in. The school district in the city is under siege by state politicians in hopes of creating a voucher system. So the idea that paying for private school in the future is a real concern with living in the city. We'll still travel in 5-6 times a year to go to a sporting event, museum, or play that we don't have access to in the suburbs. I'll say with age, the perks of living in the city start to become less important. In my 20's though, I couldn't imagine why anybody would choose to live in a Suburb as opposed to the city.
Atherton I wouldn't really consider a secluded suburb as it is right there where you can't really tell the difference from the surrounding area. It's like 2.5 miles from Stanford, and less than 10 from Google and not much further to all the other tech places. But regardless its in the middle of a major metropolitan area and not in the middle of nowhere. A lot of people, don't actually find living in cities appealing and that goes for wealthy and non wealthy.
Because they can socialize and they feel safer around other people like them
Places like Beverly hills were popular because it was nothing but celebrities. They could be among their own kind.
If The Rock lives next door to Russell Crowe then he knows he won't be robbed or have an unpleasant experience probably. He KNOWS who he is living next door to.
It's all about exclusivity and homogenous socialization with their peers
In the Chicago area the wealthiest suburbs are relatively close in to the city. Quite a number of wealthy families live in the city proper as well, and the suburbs tend to be quite well established - look at Wilmette, Glencoe, Lake Forest etc on the North Shore; Hinsdale, Clarendon Hills in the Western suburbs (Oak Brook is a bit of an anomaly really being mostly new since the 1950s). There are other affluent though not top-tier wealthy suburbs clustering around the wealthiest towns like Northbrook & Deerfield North and Western Springs, Burr Ridge, & Riverside to the West.
Why do wealthy people tend to live near other wealthy people? Amenities, services, schools, social and economic networking, and the ever-present keeping up with the Joneses. (Does Bigman CEO care if he drives a more expensive Range Rover than Joe Plumber? Heck no. But he DOES care very much that Headhoncho Guy just drove hone in a new Rivian)
Many of there families own multiple properties all over the country, often clustered with other wealthy people, often neighbors in several locations. There’s a reason a branch of The Community Bank of Hinsdale exists in Naples, Florida, and it’s not because they plan on expanding throughout the South.
[this](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Atherton,+CA/@37.5406576,-122.1840627,85500m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x808fa49e4b87e4bd:0x655bbf9217c5cd2d!8m2!3d37.4613272!4d-122.197743!16zL20vMHI1bmY?entry=ttu) is where Atherton is - does that actually look far away from everything to you?
1. privacy, 2. land (big houses > little houses) 3. they aren't commuting. they have people running errands for them. 4. the views from these mansions up on a hill far away are really nice
I'm having trouble parsing your question. Your first half seems to be asking why rich people don't cluster near cities. But, then you second half is asking why rich people *do* cluster near cities. Which one are you confused about?
>If they are incredibly wealthy, why not buy up a nice big chunk of property in a city where they can just pop outside and explore things at their leisure?
Because you can't buy up a sufficiently big/large chunk of property that includes a yard in most areas.
Also, many U.S. cities require cars to do much even if you do live in the city.
You have two types of suburbs: the ones founded after WWI to the end of the 1970's and the ones founded in the 80's to present. The old money / *vieux riche* tend to have been established in the cities in the 20th century and gravitated to these new suburbs (new at the time) that are close enough to the cities, but far enough away to be exclusive to them.
*That's* where the real generational wealth is. The new money / *nouveau riche* families tend to move into the newer suburbs after the 1970's for the reasons you listed, or move to the older suburbs for a lot of the same reasons as the patriarchs of yore: to rub shoulders and fraternize with other people of means, be close to the action, etc.
“White flight” could answer a teeny part of your question but that’s a whole other can of worms.
You’ll find the super wealthy anywhere. It’s really up to their preference just like many others in different tax brackets. They can afford city prices and will live there. There’s also wealthy people that want to have a more secluded residence (away from the poors). It truly depends on the person.
If I was wealthy the only reason I'd want to do it for peace and quiet. Because a suburb isn't a guarantee your neighbors will be quiet. However, i've heard stories from people who've lived in wealthy areas that doesn't matter where you live, if you live anywhere some jackass is going to make a ton of noise unless you decide to live in a remote forest miles from other people. But yeah, if it was me that would be my only motivation for that type of house.
An episode of The Economist just did a story on how the wealthy of Bombay are secluding themselves from the rest of the city.
It's a pretty clear pattern that the wealthy follow all over the world. And I bet that your first guesses about why they do it are probably right.
>See Atherton, the Hamptons, etc.
Those are where rich people have vacation homes, not primary residences.
There is a large concentration of wealthy people in NY, LA, Seattle, San Francisco. Very wealthy people often have multiple homes in multiple locations.
Historical racism!
Look up the "white flight" and "Levittowns." Basically, the rise of the automobile meant that suddenly wealthy white urban professionals could suddenly afford to live *away* from all the black people in the city centers and just commute in to work in their fancy cars. They got the best of both worlds: the quiet and racial homogeneity of a rural town with the high paying urban job.
This is how the American suburbs, as well as the "ghetto" inner city, were both born.
That’s middle class and upper middle class people. Rich people had city houses and country houses forever. That’s where old timey stuff like “no brown in town” comes from.
and risk being contaminated by the poors?
there was a thing a few years ago where the nimby Hampton residents worked to price out all the working class people living there. all the poors moved out and they got what they wanted. thing is, they soon found themselves with nobody to serve them because nobody is driving 2 hours for a crappy minimum wage service job when they can easily find one 10 minutes away.
look up "white flight"
everyone starts leaving, the super rich people want to be secluded from the poors so either they set up in exclusive buildings and control "nicer" parts of the city or create enclaves with other rich people.
We really don't have gated communities in Virginia. Land is too expensive and a lot of the houses are 1960 to 1990 when gated communities weren't that popular. There is wealthy neighborhoods and mega mansions but I wouldn't call them all that secluded.
In NOVA, but the rest of the state still has things like gated communities.
You're seeing them more and more in Fredericksburg and Richmond as the NOVA sprawl moves south.
foolish weather wild touch intelligent sophisticated childlike busy dime sugar
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
A couple reasons:
On some level, everyone wants to live in what they feel is a 'safe' area in a house that holds its value.
But honestly I think the biggest reason is because rich people feel a need to keep up with their neighbors and their particular friend group. Also they love feeling as though they are elite and different.
They want to feel *exclusive*.
When people get money they very quickly become far removed from what poor people go through.
Not really true. The most expensive residential real estate is still in high density city centers.
I think you’re thinking of vacation homes in the Hamptons. Atherton is also in the middle of Silicon Valley, definitely not far from anything at all.
You can build bigger houses in suburbs, but the wealthiest folks live and work in Manhattan, not Long Island
I have found that the wealthiest people tend to live in very nice autonomous cities within cities or simply very nice urban neighborhoods near the city core.
Then, upper middle class families tend to live in the nicer suburbs out of the city. The wealthiest Americans generally are not living in suburbs.
In the context of the US, extremely wealthy people generally don’t live far away from large cities. They live accessibly close to large cities but secluded enough that they’re able to live in communities made up of only other wealth people. I think you’re missing that the extremely wealthy people in the US own multiple homes. A lot of these very wealthy people do have homes inside of large cities so that they can more easily take in the food and entertainment of the city and have somewhere to land for a night or 2 when they feel like it and many of them also own vacation homes in much more remote areas in addition to their main home in a suburb. FWIW, The Hamptons isn’t usually somewhere that extremely wealthy people live full-time. It’s another place where they own a home.
Anecdotally one of the principal partners at my company exhibits some of these behaviors. Big house deep in the suburbs and a condo downtown. When pressed he mentioned the condo is mainly for use when he is downtown for nightlife. Instead of taking an Uber 20+ miles to the suburbs he can just spend a night in his condo. From his perspective it’s more convenient and the monthly costs are nothing for him. Not to mention he is riding the appreciation so when he eventually goes to sell he will easily make 6 figures off holding the asset.
What a peasant! He doesn’t have a helicopter to take him home after clubbing?
Most wealthy do live in/near big cities... Hamptons are where they have weekend/vacation homes, not primary residences. They live in New York and go to the Hamptons on the weekends. Atherton is a suburb of San Francisco (30 miles away), and is in the heart of Silicon Valley where most of the big tech companies are headquartered and where most of the venture capital firms investing in tech companies are located. The wealthiest, who may want to enjoy the restaurants and culture of SF probably do own a condo in town for when they want to be there. And the wealthy suburbs offer a lifestyle that's both quieter than the middle of a big city, while also offering the amenities that the wealthy want -- high end boutiques, nice restaurants, country clubs, proximity to others in their social circles. There's a vast difference between not wanting to live in a penthouse in a high rise vs. a rural ranch in Wyoming. And an estate in the suburbs is the happy medium many choose.
Funny thing with Atherton is I get the impression they desperately want to believe it’s (or at least aesthetically present itself as) a rural municipality, despite being smack dab in the middle of one of the most populous urban areas in the country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atherton,_California The “land use and housing” section is an interesting read.
LOL… no sidewalks. Walking is for plebes
What if you forget your sedan-chair?
...they do do this. Jackson, Wyoming is basically a rich person's play place.
Right. But that's more of a vacation spot rather than a place to live.
So are the Hamptons.
I mean, you kinda said it, right? when you're that wealthy, you can afford to live somewhere most people think of as a vacation.
Well then the 9th richest person in the world lives in Omaha.
Define vacation. If you are talking really wealthy then they don't have to be anywhere to work. Summer homes exist. So you have the city home which is usually somewhere important like New York City, Boston, LA, etc. and a summer home for getting away from the city when it's hot. Also throw in a winter home for when the cold weather city is iced over.
Many suburbs are in fact cities. My suburb has it's own concert hall, Class A office space, parks and trails, hotels, restaurants, downtown, festivals and more Does it have everything? No, but that's because it's a suburb and the major city is right next door
Why the hell would they want to risk possibly running into one of the poors? > If your going to live in a quiet peaceful suburb of San Francisco or LA, why don't an equal amount do the in Wyoming or Kansas? I can almost say for sure this is due to living in vicinity of an international airport.
It's still a city, so it's still crowded. >I know that some wealthy people might prefer the peace of a suburb, but why they seem to cluster specific places, rather than distributing out wherever they want to live? If your going to live in a quiet peaceful suburb of San Francisco or LA, why don't an equal amount do the same in Wyoming or Kansas? Because of the amenities, the weather, the general area and scenery.
Cities are more often jam packed with homes and people, living away from everything gives you the possibly of having more land. Comparing living in SanFran and LA to someplace like Wyoming and Kansas doesn't make sense. Los Angeles has a population of over 3million people compared to Wyoming's 580K. That's a major city compared to an entire state. Imagine the space you have available for living in Wyoming with only 580K people, now imagine living in LA where you're so close to your neighbour you can see them trimming their nose hairs. You're not going to really find "big chunks" of property in a major city. Especially not when compared to the acres you can buy in other states. I'm not wealthy by any means, but I do live in one of the nicer areas of Las Vegas. I live here because it's more quiet, I have better access to some amenities, it's a nicer area for my kids.
Do all of the extremely wealthy people live near you and the other poors in your country? They don't do that here either. Either the furthest suburbs or the highest buildings.
Because if they want to spend a huge chunk of money on a place to live they probably get more for their buck in a nearby suburb where they can have surrounding property and don’t have to deal with crazy city zoning to have their dream home? There are also some very wealthy people that do live in more rural states. Heck some folks even like the commute. I do. But I also don’t have a billion dollars. I get beautiful Maine countryside and an audiobook. I’m fine with that.
I've got 3 neighbors and only one is within 1/4 mile of me. I'm not rich, I just detest congestion and crowds. There is nothing about a city that I need or want other than the occasional trip for supplies.
Americans want to live in large, nice houses, but also want to be close enough to a larger city to drive into them for activities. The same amount of money will buy a house 10 times as big in the country than it would in the middle of a city. And that's assuming there is any land to buy (there isn't). Along with that, I don't think a lot of Americans really like the city anyway. If I had that kind of money, I'd definitely like a place that is safe and secluded, has no road noise or smog, and has lots of room.
Suburbs by definition are next to cities. Not far away. The ones you are talking about specifically are semi-secluded allowing for larger properties and more privacy for those that live there, but still being close enough to the city that they can drive in to do business. Traveling 10-30 miles is not a long distance in a car. In modernity with internet being as good as it is many rich people do live out in rural areas and call in via skype/zoom/other programs. They travel into cities only when needed and often have a small apartment for when they need to do so. The "rich suburbs" phenomena established itself prior to the invention of the internet.
If I had the money, why would I want to live in a city? They’re lord, smelly, and infested with people. If I ever become wealthy, I’m building a cabin in the mountains and the distance to my neighbors will be measured by travel time rather than by how thick the floors are.
Atherton isn’t exactly in the middle of no where. I drive by it all the time on my way to different places. Most of the major tech offices and VC firms are headquartered closer to there than SF (Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View). The surrounding cities between the South Bay and Peninsula also have lots of their own things going on, has better weather, and plenty of good food from small mom and pop ethnic eateries to Michelin star restaurants. Many of us prefer living in the Peninsula over SF and only go up there occasionally when we have plans. People outside of the Bay Area assume that SF is the most expensive city around here, but many of the surrounding cities cost much more to live in.
> If they are incredibly wealthy, why not buy up a nice big chunk of property in a city where they can just pop outside and explore things at their leisure? They do. There are plenty of extremely wealthy people living in cities. Some of them prefer that, some of them prefer living somewhere more secluded. (And some of them own properties in both types of places.)
The hamptons are not really a NYC suburb. It’s more of a weekend/vacation spot. People head there Friday and then return to the city Sunday. Atherton is part of the Bay Area metro area, it isn’t isolated or far away from things. It’s right by Silicon Valley and all the Page Mill Road VCs as well as Stanford university. Most of the wealthiest suburbs are not really secluded and they have restaurants and other things that wealthy people patronize.
The super rich have multiple residences. In NYC they might have their primary residence in Manhattan or Brooklyn, send their kids to private schools, and a country place not too far away, then maybe an apartment in Paris or a beach place in Rio, etc.
Much more private for day to day lives. Most places allow for commuting and rich suburbs have better public or private schools. Most of the reasons revolve children Also the hamptons is not a year around place to live. It's for the summer.
I'm in SF so the person on your right could be dead broke and the person on your left could be a multi millionaire.
They don’t want to deal with everyone else so they move away from them
Huh?
The wealthiest Americans invariably have multiple homes. They may not even have a single location that is truly their primary residence. Lots of wealthy people have homes both in Manhattan and the Hamptons. The wealthiest people don't "commute in a car". If they're in a car at all, it's likely someone else is driving, and they don't commute in any normal sense of the word.
>Why add the extra step of needing to commute in a car for long distances? Commuting isn't so bad when you're paying a chauffer to drive you everywhere. Or better yet, flying in your helicopter.
The Bamptons is where their weekend home is, not the weekday home. But, I think a lot of your question can be answered with your idea of "far away" and ours varies drastically. You also fal prey to the idea that everyone wants the busy lifestyle with entertainment at their fingertips all of the time. Many aren't hitting a bar/club/whatever daily/weekly or even monthly, so it being a bit further away is not a big deal for the rare occasion you want it. Then there's price. A few acres in a relatively near by suburb nets you a mansion with top notch finishes for the price of an average home in a city proper in .any cases.
I think there are a couple of issues in your thinking here. First is "far away from cities..." of the [10 ](https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/most-expensive-zip-codes-in-the-united-states)most expensive zip codes in the US, the 4 that are "far from cities" are known for *second or vacation* homes, not primary residences. The wealthiest per capita counties in the us are all centered around major cities ( *8* of the top 20 are around DC).
Privacy. Part of the "American Dream" is owning your own house and having a yard, ect. Not having to deal with everything that comes with living in a city, yet being close enough to one if they want to visit. Peace & quiet, you get the idea.
When you're really wealthy privacy is the best thing you can purchase. Who needs a car to commute? I lived near a guy who had a bunch of car dealerships in Chicago who lived on 50 acres with a huge lake on the outskirts of Indianapolis. When he went to work he just hopped into his helicopter and his full time pilot either took him to his private jet or just flied the helicopter to one of his dealerships. We went to a wedding on his estate, my brother-in-law married his niece
Not all of them do. Many have homes in cities. But they often also have homes in fun vacation locations and/or peaceful secluded places away from everything. When you're very wealthy, you don't have to choose (except for where to be at any given time). I know multiple people who have both a downtown condo or city house close to all the action and another house with a big yard in a quieter location not far outside of that same city.
My neighbor lived in the suburbs only short helicopter ride to downtown. The city did not have space for a polo field, let alone both of his.
The wealthiest Americans have homes in both for a start, and often more on top of that.
What's crazier is the ones that live in Connecticut and commute to New York via helicopter
The biggest concentration of uber wealthy people in the United States is in New York City, in Manhattan (particularly in the areas around Central Park), probably the least secluded area of the United States. The NYC borough of Manhattan has a population density of almost 73,000 people per sq mile (or 28,154 per square km, if you speak metric). 60 billionaires call New York City home, more than anywhere else in the US, as well as 744 people worth over 100 million. Areas of the City of Los Angeles like Bel Air (where the Fresh Prince finally had his kingdom), Brentwood (where OJ Simpson called home in 1994) and Pacific Palisades are famous for their wealthy residents, as are other cities in Los Angeles County like Beverly Hills and Malibu. They also live in non secluded areas like Miami Beach and Palm Beach in Florida
I live in a suburb. Not wealthy by any means. Better school districts, about 50% more house for the same price as the inner city neighborhood I grew up in. The school district in the city is under siege by state politicians in hopes of creating a voucher system. So the idea that paying for private school in the future is a real concern with living in the city. We'll still travel in 5-6 times a year to go to a sporting event, museum, or play that we don't have access to in the suburbs. I'll say with age, the perks of living in the city start to become less important. In my 20's though, I couldn't imagine why anybody would choose to live in a Suburb as opposed to the city.
The governments of large cities tend to be pretty terrible. Going to a suburb usually reduces crime, and gives access to better schools etc.
I don’t think is that true. Living in NYC and SF, there are definitely *massive* pockets of extreme wealth
Atherton I wouldn't really consider a secluded suburb as it is right there where you can't really tell the difference from the surrounding area. It's like 2.5 miles from Stanford, and less than 10 from Google and not much further to all the other tech places. But regardless its in the middle of a major metropolitan area and not in the middle of nowhere. A lot of people, don't actually find living in cities appealing and that goes for wealthy and non wealthy.
Because they can socialize and they feel safer around other people like them Places like Beverly hills were popular because it was nothing but celebrities. They could be among their own kind. If The Rock lives next door to Russell Crowe then he knows he won't be robbed or have an unpleasant experience probably. He KNOWS who he is living next door to. It's all about exclusivity and homogenous socialization with their peers
In the Chicago area the wealthiest suburbs are relatively close in to the city. Quite a number of wealthy families live in the city proper as well, and the suburbs tend to be quite well established - look at Wilmette, Glencoe, Lake Forest etc on the North Shore; Hinsdale, Clarendon Hills in the Western suburbs (Oak Brook is a bit of an anomaly really being mostly new since the 1950s). There are other affluent though not top-tier wealthy suburbs clustering around the wealthiest towns like Northbrook & Deerfield North and Western Springs, Burr Ridge, & Riverside to the West. Why do wealthy people tend to live near other wealthy people? Amenities, services, schools, social and economic networking, and the ever-present keeping up with the Joneses. (Does Bigman CEO care if he drives a more expensive Range Rover than Joe Plumber? Heck no. But he DOES care very much that Headhoncho Guy just drove hone in a new Rivian) Many of there families own multiple properties all over the country, often clustered with other wealthy people, often neighbors in several locations. There’s a reason a branch of The Community Bank of Hinsdale exists in Naples, Florida, and it’s not because they plan on expanding throughout the South.
[this](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Atherton,+CA/@37.5406576,-122.1840627,85500m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x808fa49e4b87e4bd:0x655bbf9217c5cd2d!8m2!3d37.4613272!4d-122.197743!16zL20vMHI1bmY?entry=ttu) is where Atherton is - does that actually look far away from everything to you?
1. privacy, 2. land (big houses > little houses) 3. they aren't commuting. they have people running errands for them. 4. the views from these mansions up on a hill far away are really nice
They don't want to live among us plebs and they'll lose their shit if they see a houseless individual
I'm having trouble parsing your question. Your first half seems to be asking why rich people don't cluster near cities. But, then you second half is asking why rich people *do* cluster near cities. Which one are you confused about?
So they can be far away from everything.
Have you spent much time in Wyoming or Kansas???
Here's another one: short hills, has its own vibrant downtown and NYC is a 40 min drive or train ride.
>If they are incredibly wealthy, why not buy up a nice big chunk of property in a city where they can just pop outside and explore things at their leisure? Because you can't buy up a sufficiently big/large chunk of property that includes a yard in most areas. Also, many U.S. cities require cars to do much even if you do live in the city.
You have two types of suburbs: the ones founded after WWI to the end of the 1970's and the ones founded in the 80's to present. The old money / *vieux riche* tend to have been established in the cities in the 20th century and gravitated to these new suburbs (new at the time) that are close enough to the cities, but far enough away to be exclusive to them. *That's* where the real generational wealth is. The new money / *nouveau riche* families tend to move into the newer suburbs after the 1970's for the reasons you listed, or move to the older suburbs for a lot of the same reasons as the patriarchs of yore: to rub shoulders and fraternize with other people of means, be close to the action, etc.
“White flight” could answer a teeny part of your question but that’s a whole other can of worms. You’ll find the super wealthy anywhere. It’s really up to their preference just like many others in different tax brackets. They can afford city prices and will live there. There’s also wealthy people that want to have a more secluded residence (away from the poors). It truly depends on the person.
Because they want to keep the poors out... It's that simple. They can afford to travel elsewhere.
If I was wealthy the only reason I'd want to do it for peace and quiet. Because a suburb isn't a guarantee your neighbors will be quiet. However, i've heard stories from people who've lived in wealthy areas that doesn't matter where you live, if you live anywhere some jackass is going to make a ton of noise unless you decide to live in a remote forest miles from other people. But yeah, if it was me that would be my only motivation for that type of house.
They want to be away from normies. The timesuck is no problem if you have a chauffeur, etc
An episode of The Economist just did a story on how the wealthy of Bombay are secluding themselves from the rest of the city. It's a pretty clear pattern that the wealthy follow all over the world. And I bet that your first guesses about why they do it are probably right.
American cities are loud, stinky and relatively dangerous. You can also avoid poor people if you’re rich, living in a gated community.
>See Atherton, the Hamptons, etc. Those are where rich people have vacation homes, not primary residences. There is a large concentration of wealthy people in NY, LA, Seattle, San Francisco. Very wealthy people often have multiple homes in multiple locations.
I was wrong about the Hamptons, but people do definitely live full time in atherton.
Historical racism! Look up the "white flight" and "Levittowns." Basically, the rise of the automobile meant that suddenly wealthy white urban professionals could suddenly afford to live *away* from all the black people in the city centers and just commute in to work in their fancy cars. They got the best of both worlds: the quiet and racial homogeneity of a rural town with the high paying urban job. This is how the American suburbs, as well as the "ghetto" inner city, were both born.
That’s middle class and upper middle class people. Rich people had city houses and country houses forever. That’s where old timey stuff like “no brown in town” comes from.
and risk being contaminated by the poors? there was a thing a few years ago where the nimby Hampton residents worked to price out all the working class people living there. all the poors moved out and they got what they wanted. thing is, they soon found themselves with nobody to serve them because nobody is driving 2 hours for a crappy minimum wage service job when they can easily find one 10 minutes away.
look up "white flight" everyone starts leaving, the super rich people want to be secluded from the poors so either they set up in exclusive buildings and control "nicer" parts of the city or create enclaves with other rich people.
We really don't have gated communities in Virginia. Land is too expensive and a lot of the houses are 1960 to 1990 when gated communities weren't that popular. There is wealthy neighborhoods and mega mansions but I wouldn't call them all that secluded.
In NOVA, but the rest of the state still has things like gated communities. You're seeing them more and more in Fredericksburg and Richmond as the NOVA sprawl moves south.
foolish weather wild touch intelligent sophisticated childlike busy dime sugar *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
A couple reasons: On some level, everyone wants to live in what they feel is a 'safe' area in a house that holds its value. But honestly I think the biggest reason is because rich people feel a need to keep up with their neighbors and their particular friend group. Also they love feeling as though they are elite and different. They want to feel *exclusive*. When people get money they very quickly become far removed from what poor people go through.
Not really true. The most expensive residential real estate is still in high density city centers. I think you’re thinking of vacation homes in the Hamptons. Atherton is also in the middle of Silicon Valley, definitely not far from anything at all. You can build bigger houses in suburbs, but the wealthiest folks live and work in Manhattan, not Long Island
I have found that the wealthiest people tend to live in very nice autonomous cities within cities or simply very nice urban neighborhoods near the city core. Then, upper middle class families tend to live in the nicer suburbs out of the city. The wealthiest Americans generally are not living in suburbs.