U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Los Angeles
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-10-2008, 11:46 PM
 
Location: La Cañada, CA
332 posts, read 1,514,911 times
Reputation: 160

Advertisements

well my reasoning is mostly behind the schools... most wealthy people live in areas where their kids can get a good education.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-11-2008, 12:24 AM
 
2,106 posts, read 5,564,883 times
Reputation: 1138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rats View Post
well my reasoning is mostly behind the schools... most wealthy people live in areas where their kids can get a good education.
most wealthy people send their kids to private schools, regardless of the quality of the neighborhood schools. a lot of people who aren't wealthy do so as well. private schooling opens doors that only the highest achievers in the average public school ever get to knock on, and people who can afford it will pay for their kids to have those extra advantages. (why wouldn't they?)

there are secondary benefits, as well, such as having more control over the kind of kids with whom their children associate. less spoken of, but just as real, are the networking opportunities for parents in a context that offers at least the facade of intimacy. it's a nice little perq of having a kid in an elite school, and a big reason the recruiters are always quick to mention that this or that mover-and-shaker has children enrolled there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2008, 01:01 AM
 
1 posts, read 45,396 times
Reputation: 14
I thought i'd finally chime in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRealAngelion View Post
Everywhere really. LA is a very diverse, integrated and gentrified city. It's not uncommon to have millionaires living on the same street as poor immigrants from Central America, like in Silverlake, for example.

But some of the more commonly known pockets of affluence include:

Beverly Hills, Bel Air, Holmby Hills, Westwood, Hollywood Hills, Brentwood, Pacific Palisades, Santa Monica, Los Feliz, Windsor square, Hancock Park, Toluca Lake, Encino, Pasadena, La Canada, South Pasadena, San Marino, Calabasas, Hidden Hills, Malibu, Manhattan Beach, Palos Verdes and a whole host of other areas. LA County is home to more millionaires than anyplace on the planet, so there are a lot of options to choose from.
Huh? LA, gentrified? Living in harmony with the working classes in the non-westside ghettos? Let's be real, people with money live primarily on the Westside of Los Angeles. I've grown up fairly privileged so I think I know a thing or two about this.

Rich people aren't spread out throughout Los Angeles because GENERALLY the town is a complete dump and working-class and wealthy people generally don't live outside of the much nicer and more expensive Westside (with the exception of a few places like Hollywood Hills). Los Angeles county is absolutely HUGE and includes areas outside of the City of Los Angeles so we may seem like a lot (due to the sheer size and population of out county) but generally, millionaires and billionaires are all clustered into one area... WESTSIDE! Outside of the area is a whole different world in comparison to the other parts of town. Just as it is in Paris (Central Paris) just as it is in New York City (Manhattan) just as it is in London (Inner London); wealthy people are generally clustered in one spot. We live in major cities and cities are always divided by class.

Now, some people could be poor "millionaires" by equity from their homes, but in reality they are not rich at all.



Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemh431 View Post
I believe a better question is where do poor people live, as that is easier to answer. There are just so many rich people in LA that it's hard to say exactly where they live. Overall, most live within a few miles of the beach or in the Santa Monica Mountains. Not saying that's where they all live, but there is a high concentration in those areas.
Back to reality, the truth is less than 1% of Los Angelenos are wealthy. Rich people are a rarity, this is LA after all.. not Monaco.

Last edited by Malibuboy; 03-11-2008 at 01:20 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2008, 10:04 AM
 
Location: Las Flores, Orange County, CA
26,362 posts, read 55,867,493 times
Reputation: 16412
Here is a cool too that graphically displays census data (in this case old census data, 1998).
Tiger Map Server Browser

You can putz around with it. The link above is for median family income (the higher the income the darker the green shade). There are other things you can map. Check out the theme drop down box. Normally "census tracts" is the best resolution, and not too slow on their server.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2008, 07:03 PM
 
Location: Louisville
3,308 posts, read 9,144,939 times
Reputation: 1029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malibuboy View Post
I thought i'd finally chime in.



Huh? LA, gentrified? Living in harmony with the working classes in the non-westside ghettos? Let's be real, people with money live primarily on the Westside of Los Angeles. I've grown up fairly privileged so I think I know a thing or two about this.

Rich people aren't spread out throughout Los Angeles because GENERALLY the town is a complete dump and working-class and wealthy people generally don't live outside of the much nicer and more expensive Westside (with the exception of a few places like Hollywood Hills). Los Angeles county is absolutely HUGE and includes areas outside of the City of Los Angeles so we may seem like a lot (due to the sheer size and population of out county) but generally, millionaires and billionaires are all clustered into one area... WESTSIDE! Outside of the area is a whole different world in comparison to the other parts of town. Just as it is in Paris (Central Paris) just as it is in New York City (Manhattan) just as it is in London (Inner London); wealthy people are generally clustered in one spot. We live in major cities and cities are always divided by class.

Now, some people could be poor "millionaires" by equity from their homes, but in reality they are not rich at all.





Back to reality, the truth is less than 1% of Los Angelenos are wealthy. Rich people are a rarity, this is LA after all.. not Monaco.
Well, if you go by millionaires, yes, that's a very low percentage. But, usually when people think wealthy, they think corporate jobs, white collar jobs, big Spanish and Mediterranean style homes, perfectly green yards, BMWs, Mercedes, Ferraris, Porches, Lamborghinis, Rolls Royces, heterosexual couple with 2-3 kids, and a few other things. However, some people just happen to have that, such as my family. We bought our home in '94 for 300k, and now it's worth over 1mil. We don't make millions, but close to 200k, my mom is in "The Industry", both my parents drive BMWs, we have a fairly large home, etc., but I wouldn't consider us rich, just wealthy. However, compared to the rest of LA, we would definitly be lower-upper class or upper-middle class. On a global scale, including places such as Miami Beach, La Jolla, Manhattan, Hamptons, Georgetown, Honolulu, and rich places in other global cities, we would just be middle class.

So once again, this is more of an opinion type question. Some may consider themselves wealthy, but others would consider that same family middle class.

If you are going by purely rich and making over 500k a year, it would Beverly Hills, Brentwood, Westwood, Palisades, Malibu, Encino, Tarzana, Woodland Hills, Hidden Hills, Calabasas, coastal Santa Monica, coastal Manhattan Beach, Palos Verdes, coastal Torrance, South Pasadena, San Marino and maybe a few others. If by homes over one million, it would be those areas, plus Belmont Shore, Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, inland Manhattan Beach, El Segundo, Playa del Rey, Culver City, Marina del Rey, Venice, other areas of Santa Monica, Los Feliz, Silverlake, Glendale, Pasadena, and some others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2008, 12:25 AM
 
Location: City of Angels
1,288 posts, read 3,631,921 times
Reputation: 645
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malibuboy View Post
Huh? LA, gentrified? Living in harmony with the working classes in the non-westside ghettos? Let's be real, people with money live primarily on the Westside of Los Angeles. I've grown up fairly privileged so I think I know a thing or two about this.
I agree that the greatest concentration of wealth in LA County is located on the Westside. However, that does not invalidate my earlier point about there being wealthy people and enclaves in other areas too. There are many areas of LA where wealthy people live adjacent to or in close proximity to less affluent or even poor residents. Venice, Silverlake, Los Feliz, Hancock Park, Hollywood Hills, Baldwin Hills, Windsor Hills, North Hollywood, and downtown are a few examples of such areas.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Malibuboy View Post
Rich people aren't spread out throughout Los Angeles because GENERALLY the town is a complete dump and working-class and wealthy people generally don't live outside of the much nicer and more expensive Westside (with the exception of a few places like Hollywood Hills). Los Angeles county is absolutely HUGE and includes areas outside of the City of Los Angeles so we may seem like a lot (due to the sheer size and population of out county) but generally, millionaires and billionaires are all clustered into one area... WESTSIDE!
First, LA County and city are indeed very large and spread out and there are dirty, run down areas, but there are equally as many nice and desirable areas. On the whole, LA is no dump. If it is, it's one of the best looking dumps I've ever seen. And I've done a lot of traveling. Second, as I said before, most of the wealth in LA County is on the Westside, but Westlake Village, Calabasas, Canyon Country, Encino, Hidden Hills, La Canada, Pasadena, San Marino, Manhattan Beach, and Palos Verdes, among other areas, are not on the Westside, so the idea that there isn't serious wealth in other parts of LA is simply not accurate.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Malibuboy View Post
Back to reality, the truth is less than 1% of Los Angelenos are wealthy. Rich people are a rarity, this is LA after all.. not Monaco.
Back to reality, LA County has more millionaires than anywhere else in the U.S. and the LA metro area has one of the highest concentrations of billionaires in the world. Let's keep our facts straight.

LA county has the most millionaires in the US - SkyscraperCity
http://www.city-data.com/forum/gener...lionaires.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2008, 01:08 AM
 
Location: San DiFrangeles, Ca
489 posts, read 1,329,593 times
Reputation: 249
Malibuboy is one of those people that make the rest of us Californians look bad. He is privileged, and the people that don't live in his area are dump inhabiters. Listen to him guys, remember, he knows a thing or two about this. In addition to him having to tell us he is privileged, he feels the need to mention other world class cities that make him sound traveled, cultured. Real persons that are truly blessed with wealth hardly have to flaunt it, which makes me question the validity of malibuboys apparent wealth. A truly cultured person would realize that wealthy people reside throughout the Los Angeles because their equally wealthy friends would live there too. This is an example of people trying too hard to appear wealthy, without any real credit to their name. Lets see, even if this delusional persons numbers are correct, if one percent of the 18 million that reside here are truly wealthy, that's still 180,000 people. Too bad the other 17,820,000 of us have to exist in poverty.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2008, 11:39 PM
 
Location: Mt Washington: NELA
1,156 posts, read 2,041,335 times
Reputation: 615
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemh431 View Post
I think he's referring to ghetto areas of central and northern SFV, South Central, and East LA.
Ah yes, it's all the same, isn't it? lol...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2008, 02:52 AM
 
3,151 posts, read 5,185,206 times
Reputation: 975
Quote:
Originally Posted by katenik View Post
most wealthy people send their kids to private schools, regardless of the quality of the neighborhood schools. a lot of people who aren't wealthy do so as well. private schooling opens doors that only the highest achievers in the average public school ever get to knock on, and people who can afford it will pay for their kids to have those extra advantages. (why wouldn't they?)

there are secondary benefits, as well, such as having more control over the kind of kids with whom their children associate. less spoken of, but just as real, are the networking opportunities for parents in a context that offers at least the facade of intimacy. it's a nice little perq of having a kid in an elite school, and a big reason the recruiters are always quick to mention that this or that mover-and-shaker has children enrolled there.
The same could be said about public magnet schools or public schools which are zoned only to exclusive neighborhoods. In Houston ISD many comprehensive high schools of wealthy areas also function as magnets that take in less wealthy kids too - so it serves a double function. Many comprehensives also have elite AP/IB programs that feed into universities. There are also smaller magnets that serve the same role.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2010, 03:07 PM
 
2 posts, read 41,056 times
Reputation: 10
Bel Air, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Brentwood, etc. are independent cities that have been annexed from the city of Los Angeles. They are in Los Angeles County -they are NOT considered as the city of Los Angeles. So when you hear news stories of the city of Los Angeles being broke, this doesn't not include the annexed cities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Los Angeles

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top