Cities vs Suburbs, which has less emphasis on consumerism/materialistic spending?

[MemoryMaker]

I like how most people in this thread imply that all suburbs are these filthy rich places where everyone has a lamborghini, mansion and fancy pool, etc:

There are tons of working class/lower middle class suburbs too!! In these type of suburbs, which are pretty common, most people aren't too materialistic. People seem content with driving 10 year old cars and not keeping up with the joneses. I've been able to wear my JCPenney, Target and Sears clothes as well as drive my aging car around with zero issues (I'm in my mid/early 20's). My house needs a bit of updating but nobody complains. Nobody minds the cheap above-ground pools around the neighborhood either!

It's actually funny, the most materialistic place that i've ever experienced was a POOR inner-city. If you didn't have the newest Jordans, True Religion jeans, IPhone [insert number] or if you couldn't afford real Uggs/designer bags then you'll likely get publicly made fun of/shamed! Even when I go on their instagram's, it's them showing off their designer crap. Many people have horrible credit and would then attempt to get fancy cars that they couldn't afford or rent nice furniture, therefore going into crazy debt and paying ridiculous interest rates (sometimes even paying up to 3x of what the item is actually worth in the long run)...all in the name of impressing strangers! And the few people in the hood who actually do have a lot of money are extremely blatantly flashy with it like rappers!

I would say from most to least materialistic (on average):
Poor urban area> Rich suburb> Rich urban area> Middle Class suburb> Middle class urban area> Working class urban area> Working class suburb

BTW: My experience stems from the NYC Metro Area

[Serious Conversation]

Totally agreed there is a certain element within the truly poor of society that just want to flash some bling around.