<p>But why would you want to live in a city of retired old rich people?</p>
<p>“Breacats, residents of Bloomfield Hills earn more money than residents of Darien. I guess when adjusted for cost of living, Bloomfield Hills residents a much wealthier than residents of Darien.”</p>
<p>let’s do a simple calculation:</p>
<p>Average greenwich home sale price: 1500000
Average annual property tax (0.77% in CT): 11500
Interest rate: Assume 8%
Insurance: ASSUME NONE</p>
<p>If you do a 30 year mortgage, you are looking at a 12000 dollar monthly payment per month and 144k a year, and that does not include the upkeep of the house.</p>
<p>If you do a 15 year mortgage, , you are looking at a 15000 dollar monthly payment per month and 180k a year, and that does not include the upkeep of the house.</p>
<p>Greenwich’s average household income is 120k, so after tax with all deduction it’s probably like 100k (this is very generous). So simply speaking, even if they do a 30 year mortgage, do not buy home owner’s insurance, have a really nice interest rate, no upkeep work whatsoever, they would be 44k short every year, if they put ALL their money in their house.</p>
<p>Makes sense? NOT…</p>
<p>Just to prove that average household income does not mean jack’</p>
<p>You can do the same calculation for Darien and you can still see the average household would be under water just paying for the house if average household income actually mean anything.</p>
<p>Bearcats, retirment areas are different. But then again, they are not vibrant and they aren’t great for raising children. This entire thread is about best places for families. At any rate, I was correct, Bloomfield Hills is one of the 20 wealthiest cities in the US.</p>
<p>Are you kidding me Alexandre? Places like Greenwich and Darien are in close proximity to some of the best boarding, private and public schools in the nation like Hotchkiss, Deerfield, Choate, Andover and Exeter. Lots of families live in that area and that pocket of Connecticut has perhaps the highest retail per square footage of any other location in the United States.</p>
<p>Top PE/Hedge Fund/VC players retire in their 30s and have already accumulated millions of dollars by then. This is generally the age when most of their children are growing up. It’s not like we’re talking about communities where 70 and 80 year old men gather to fish and play bingo all day.</p>
<p>I would say there are at least 20 cities/townships that are richer than Bloomfield Hills in New York and Connecticut.</p>
<p>Bloomfield Hills is perhaps one of the 50 richest American townships though.</p>
<p>I apologize about listing Naperville and Bloomington. I was rather tired last night.
Kenilsworth and other places along Chicago’s Gold Coast easily top Bloomfield Hills though.</p>
<p>LORD, this thread has gone in some crazy directions.</p>
<p>I wish Detroit wouldn’t keep shooting itself in the foot with the people it elects to lead it. If they could get out of their money woes, the city could be poised for population growth and a really nice comeback. Property is crazy cheap, cheap enough to be very tempting if you only knew that your kids would be safe and their schools weren’t facing closure. And that your streets would get plowed. That sort of thing.</p>
<p>I do not deny that New Canaan and Greenwich are significantly wealthier than Bloomfield Hills. And Kenislworth too. I admitted as much already. But there aren’t 20 such communities in NY and CT. Altogether, there are fewer than a dozen such cities in the entire nation. Bloomfield Hills is still one of the 20 wealthiest cities in the US.</p>
<p>Okay gentlemen, remind me the thread of this thread?
While you’re all busy debating the per capita earned/annual income or accumulated wealth I am reading your postings, thinking whaaa-t-f?</p>
<p>The thread was about “best places to raise a family” not best places to hire/fire a nanny : ) I find it kind of odd that the only barometric aspect being discussed is wealth (as opposed to other indicators such as environment, recreational opportunities, social fabric, community cohesiveness, calibre of public institutions; taxation levels, education (PUBLIC) availability, crime rate, crime enforcement, mental health of the population, physical health of the population…you get the gist.)
I find it especially odd that the implicit suggestion (ahem, that’s you, Bearcats) is that the VALUE OF A HOME predicates an appropriate rearing atmosphere. Au contraire, there is research out there that suggests many teens would rather live in a comparatively fiscally modest environment and have the time and attention of one or both parents than have both parents working excessively long days leaving behind a structureless home environment just to pay for the primo real estate. So while indeed those “retirement” communities in CT may very well be a great place to raise kids, it would not be due to the value of the house but rather the “pseudo-retiree” factor. And socially speaking, no doubt private boarding schools are a good fit for some kids, but I would go so far as to say not for all kids. Some kids can benefit more in a home environment than others.</p>
<p>About 10 years ago I interviewed an author and researcher who specialized in studying the phenom of the psyche of suburban offspring of high-earning double-income parents. He was a witness at an inquest involving a murder among minors. His research in the Houston area showed that there was a direct relationship between whether or not a teen felt both his parents “needed” to work (or that somehow the work was just more important than him) and a risk/likelihood of joining suburban gangs (to foster a sense of family), which were at the time on the rise Now I don’t think it’s cut and dried and indeed I’ve worked all my life and found ways to maintain structure and a strong relationship with my son…but it was an interesting perspective and one that stayed with me and truthfully, had me reevaluate some of my priorities and approaches to the concept of “providing.”
Cheers,
K</p>
<p>^^ I can speak from personal experience. One of my friends used to lash out and get into trouble in high school because his parents focused more on their jobs than taking care of his emotional needs. Both parents were making over $200,000.</p>
<p>My husband grew up in Bloomfield Hills family, not so incidentally. From the stories he’s told about himself and the kids he grew up with, a wealthy zipcode was no guarantee of a superior family life or a fulfilling, secure, happy childhood. As a kid, he got to go on great vacations, and his parents were able to provide all kinds of opportunities, but I think he would agree that his childhood was no happier than mine (growing up in much more modest circumstances). Some of his friends had really tough times growing up, despite their family’s wealth, and some are still living with the consequences.</p>
<p>I’m not saying living in a wealthy neighborhood is a bad thing. It’s just not a very good litmus test of whether a place is great for families.</p>
<p>Exactly. It’s a very fine balance between “sufficiency/security” in the material sense and “sufficiency/security” in the emotional sense. And that balance CAN be achieved in any neighborhood when people set their intent.</p>
<p>LOL…Bloomington, IL being named in a list of most wealthy townships. That’s my hometown and though there are some with $, the standard of living doesn’t come close to what I’ve seen in the Detroit suburbs. Example: Somerset Collection vs Eastland Mall or College Hills. Although the wealthy in Bloomington tend to not spend their $ in Bloomington, they go to Chicago or elsewhere for that.</p>
<p>Personally, I have absolutely fallen in love with Detroit. True I don’t live there, but I go as often as I can. I have a background in urban redevelopment and I just love the possibilities of what could be done there if they ever get their politics under control. When I was there last, I was told that some Chinese companies are buying a significant number of properties there.</p>
<p>One funny observation I’ve had of the youth living in upscale communities, is how “ghetto” or “grungy” they try to be.</p>