Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
This is official documentation of what people report as their average income. It is 100% bullet proof fact. Census data always is over any article.
To which most people will respond--so what? I'm not trying to discount the amount of wealth in Metro Detroit, as it has a history of "old money" to which few other cities in the US can compare.
Nevertheless, Median Household Income is much better indicator of widespread wealth. Most large cities have super-wealthy enclaves where the 1% likes to congregate itself, but I'm personally more impressed by the extent to which a very broad, middle-to-upper-middle class is sustained.
I would update it to latest 2013 figures but I'm not that motivated to sit through 200 suburbs and do that. Here is a non-census related one, not much of a difference in its findings either. http://higley1000.com/archives/380
Plus your link is neighborhoods and not suburbs. So two different things in the first place.
But that is somewhat misleading. Chevy Chase section 5 is .1 miles and 650 residences. Sorry to nitpick but just saying. Thank you for posting the link though.
But that is somewhat misleading. Chevy Chase section 5 is .1 miles and 650 residences. Sorry to nitpick but just saying. Thank you for posting the link though.
You're right but that doesn't take away from their purchasing power -- which is among the country's absolute top.
Most of these suburbs are small but most of the wealthiest suburbs (and even city neighborhoods in the country for that matter) ARE small both geographically and by population (often well less than 6 digits in population). There are some exceptions but they are mostly aberrations and not the norm.
That is the point. Those that have the income and money to live a certain way do so among others that are capable of those very same attributes, and those numbers of people tend to be small and tidy.
I mean, sure, we can sit here and compare the best of the "average" suburbs. A Naperville or a Plano or a Irvine or whatever, but that is mostly splitting hairs as those suburbs are usually replicated in every sort of city in the country -- regardless of size. Those are the type of suburbs one says "everywhere has these sort of suburbs." We don't say that about Chevy Chase or Greenwich because that would be an absurdity -- as not everywhere has suburbs like these, at all.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 05-05-2015 at 03:08 PM..
Reason: Power, not capability. Power, not capability. Power, not capability. Will do this until sentence syntax is corrected.
Here is my favorite case study for demonstration (because I know this city pretty well).
Quote:
Chicago: 25 Winnetka, IL $363,776
Kenilworth, IL $360,649
Bannockburn, IL $351,464 Glencoe, IL $335,542
Dune Acres, IN $330,160 Lake Forest, IL $309,825
Hinsdale, IL $280,695
Burr Ridge, IL $277,320
Barrington Hills, IL $260,232
Northfield, IL $255,512
North Barrington, IL $254,014
Oak Brook, IL $249,167
South Barrington, IL $248,794 Wilmette, IL $229,826
Green oaks, IL $225,089
River Forest, IL $225,045
Wayne, IL $223,830
Kildeer, IL $220,911
Long Grove, IL $217,685
Riverwoods, IL $216,841
Golf, IL $214,528
Clarendon HIlls, IL $209,717 Lake Bluff, IL $209,296
Lake Barrington, IL $205,709
Inverness, IL $202,200
It is widely common knowledge for anyone that has ever lived in Chicagoland that the North Shore suburbs are the best suburbs in the entire area and easily among the best in the entire country (see the supportive evidence above). Ask any Chicagoan, 90% of the serious respondents will tell you the North Shore suburbs are the areas' best suburbs, every single time.
Those same North Shore suburbs that I am talking about are the same suburbs on this ACS census list for average income in dark royal blue and bold. Notice the correlation between the concept of what an area's "best suburbs" actually are and the perception people have of an areas' best suburbs (which to bring you up to speed, in Chicagoland, it is widely believed and regarded that North Shore is the cream of the crop in terms of suburbs -- not debatable). 60% of Chicago's top 5 suburbs are in the North Shore.
So theory was put to test, at least with this one city as an example, perception of what the areas' best suburbs actually matches up to what the areas' best suburbs really are on paper, by average income/purchasing power.
It is generally the same story for most other cities and their top suburbs on this list. Here think about it this way, when the topic of "what are best suburbs" come up and if a Chicagoan responds with North Shore -- least they have is statistical fact that their suburb(s) actually sits towards the top in the country. Thus validation off actual substantive productivity.
I would imagine the same case for Detroit and its suburbs on this list too. To bring it all back to the debate earlier in the thread about suburbs and to specifically call out the guy that said "everywhere has good suburbs," tell me where your city's suburbs rank relative to Detroit's suburbs? Yeah, that is what I had expected.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 05-05-2015 at 04:13 PM..
Why exactly does average income have anything to do with the quality of a suburb? Like some have already pointed out, some of these communities have less than 500 people and consist of literally nothing but McMansions.
Why exactly does average income have anything to do with the quality of a suburb?
Suburbs with higher average income are of higher quality than lessor suburbs with lower average income that usually hover around national average or just slightly above it.
So a Winnetka is obviously a much better place to live across the spectrum than a Naperville. Even if it is smaller, less populated, and probably much less known of across the country. Though not everyone can afford to live in a Winnetka, that is the point of it all, "elite/exclusive" suburb (the best suburbs a city has).
Suburbs with higher average income are of higher quality than lessor suburbs with lower average income that usually hover around national average or just slightly above it.
So a Winnetka is obviously a much better place to live across the spectrum than a Naperville. Even if it is smaller, less populated, and probably much less known of across the country.
How is a suburb that has literally nothing but five streets and a few dozen McMansions "high quality"? These people usually have to leave their own community to do basically anything.
To me, a "high quality" suburb has amenities that a wide spectrum of people can enjoy. Sure, some of them are high income, but most of those places are middle class communities.
How is a suburb that has literally nothing but five streets and a few dozen McMansions "high quality"?
Less congestion, less pollution, often safer, often better school options, often better road conditions, often less poverty, often less people living on food stamps, often less cases of a "broken family." Often more cultured too, so on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jennifat
These people usually have to leave their own community to do basically anything.
Yeah, I would imagine people that want to live in these suburbs don't want it to be a commercial center. I mean that is why they are living in a suburb in the first place, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jennifat
To me, a "high quality" suburb has amenities that a wide spectrum of people can enjoy.
To me a "quality suburb" is also the safest suburb in the area. The most protected. The best landscaped. The best when it comes to taken care of. The best location and access to the best areas of the city or natural area. The most productive. So on. Pretty much has every facet in the "livability" category handled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jennifat
Sure, some of them are high income, but most of those places are middle class communities.
Middle-class is fine but every city has those types of suburbs. Literally. What is really the difference between a Plano, a Naperville, an Alpharetta really? Nothing, all generic, all average. Basically the same thing in a different part of the country.
Not so much the case with a Winnetka, Westlake, or John's Creek for those same cities (Chicago, Dallas, and Atlanta).
How is a suburb that has literally nothing but five streets and a few dozen McMansions "high quality"? These people usually have to leave their own community to do basically anything.
To me, a "high quality" suburb has amenities that a wide spectrum of people can enjoy. Sure, some of them are high income, but most of those places are middle class communities.
You are making a broad generalization about suburbs. There are all kinds of suburbs, and many have historic downtowns or squares with all the amenities because they grew from independent towns into a suburb of a larger nearby city. But they definitely aren't all the same.
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
