Hacker News Reader

Comment by reducesuffering | Hacker News Reader

Eh, the wealthiest in America mostly live in spacious suburbs. They aren't very city-like, but they're not the same suburbs as GP mentioned either. In every wealthy metro, there will be a couple areas that the wealthiest coalesce around.

Think Hillsborough/Atherton/Palo Alto, Carmel IN, Newton/Brookline MA, Beverly Hills, Greenwich County CT, River Oaks in Houston, Boulder CO, Scottsdale AZ, etc

View on HN

I’m from Houston originally and tried to describe River Oaks exactly. It’s an old money suburb that is now “in the loop” before 40 miles of sprawl in every direction.

This and a few other places like it are where most wealthy people in Houston live. A suburb like Katy is great for a “rich” petroleum engineer and what not. But wealth is something else.

Ah, when I reread it, your description is fairly aligned. I think it was the description of "inner-city" that threw me off. I don't think people think "inner-city" when thinking of these wealthy suburban enclaves. I thought you were implying a more dense and urban environment, when these suburban enclaves are barely walkable at all.

> the wealthiest in America mostly live in spacious suburbs.

The wealthiest people I see don't live in any particular place. They have houses everywhere — inner city, the spacious suburbs you mention, rural, and everything in between. They don't limit themselves to living in just one country either.

Having one home and seeing your entire life revolve around it is what poor people do.

Sure, they have their city pied-a-terre and rural chateau, but they spend most of their time in their suburban Beverly Hills-esque mansion

Reply on news.ycombinator.com